| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 13/07 |
| Hearing date | 1 Nov 2006 |
| Determination date | 02 February 2007 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | K Stringleman ; K Spackman & D Taylor |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Field v Department of Corrections |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant dismissed following incident with inmate - Inmate claimed applicant punched him - Applicant denied assault and asserted self-defence - Preliminary investigation draft report recommended insufficient evidence for full investigation - Report implied two inmate witnesses unreliable - Manager found report unsatisfactory and contacted auditor for comments - Auditor criticised conclusions not supported by evidence - Involvement of auditor reasonable response - Manager and auditor reacted reasonably to what both saw as flaws in report - Final report recommended was sufficient evidence for full investigation - Authority found incident warranted full investigation - Allegation could not be rejected because came from possibly unreliable inmate - Fair and reasonable employer would have initiiated full investigation in circumstances - Even if applicant unfairly treated by intervention of manager and auditor leading to unfair report, did not follow dismissal unjustified - Other manager (C") conducted full investigation - C not aware of manager and auditor's involvement - Involvement did not affect C's investigation or conclusions - Applicant had notes from preliminary investigation and opportunity to give reasons witnesses might have lied or mistaken - C not obliged to tell applicant disbelieved his denial of assault before expressing conclusion in final report - C gave applicant opportunity to explain and considered explanation without predetermination - Final decision-maker's role not to repeat investigation - Reasonable to convey to applicant his view about accuracy of C's findings - By recognising applicant likely to be dismissed, did not predetermine dismissal decision - Authority satisfied investigation full and fair - Subsequently added details of events made it difficult to accept applicant's version as reliable - Applicant's evidence not preferred in absence of direct witnesses - Given several inmates claimed saw applicant punch inmate, co-workers observations at scene after incident, and surrounding circumstances, reasonable employer would have found applicant punched inmate and dismissed him - Dismissal justified - Piggery instructor" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards and Hostesses of New Zealand IUOW v Air New Zealand Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 584;Honda NZ Ltd v NZ Shipwrights etc IUOW [1991] 1 NZLR 392 ; [1990] 3 NZILR 23;NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;Rankin v Attorney-General in respect of State Services Commissioner [2001] 1 ERNZ 476 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 13_07.pdf [pdf 56 KB] |