| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 11/02 |
| Determination date | 24 January 2002 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | Nutter in person ; D Patten |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Nutter v Telecom New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Sexual harassment - Applicant romantically pursued married co-worker - Playful flirtations reciprocated until co-worker felt uncomfortable about level of attention - Told co-worker he had made a voodoo doll of her - Co-worker informed manager of unwanted attention - Similar complaints by other workers had been made against applicant over previous two years - Disciplinary meeting - No prior notification of detail of allegations - Knew detail of allegations anyway - No prejudice - Could not rely on previous misconduct to justify dismissal - Could take previous misconduct into account in determining whether to have continued trust and confidence in applicant - Dismissed for inappropriate behaviour that other employees needed to be protected from - Investigation sufficient - Decision to dismiss was one a reasonable and fair employer could have made - No disparity of treatment - Publication of co-worker's and witness' names prohibited - Transport investment analyst |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil NZ Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483;NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;Samu v Air New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 ERNZ 636;W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 ; [2001] 3 NZLR 29 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 11_02.pdf [pdf 60 KB] |