| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Dismissed for abusive and intimidating conduct during altercation with delivery driver outside company premises - Respondent's director saw incident and spoke with driver - Director then rang applicant and told him 'gone too far' and would be dismissed - Despite being told not to return, applicant promptly went back to premises - Took issue with accusations and expressed adverse view of way company run - Applicant claimed dismissed for criticising management - Director sought to make number of allegations about applicant's conduct during employment, although stated would not have dismissed but for incident - Evidence of bullying behaviour by applicant - Applicant dismissed on phone, not after criticising management - Basic requirements of procedural fairness not met - Decision flawed if driveway incident immediate reason for it - If relying on historical concerns, failure to address them made decision even more flawed - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Applicant contributed very significantly to grievance - Driving inherently dangerous and confronting delivery driver unacceptable - If addressed properly, dismissal would probably have been justified - Contributory conduct 100 percent - PENALTY - Respondent claimed provided full employment agreement but no record of this - Signed job description did not comply with s65 Employment Relations Act 2000 - However, no penalty provision in s65 - Length of service not specified - Steel fabricator |