| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 35/07 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jan 2007 - 31 Jan 2007 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 02 April 2007 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | D Kilpatrick ; V Donaghy |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Crooks v Pratt & Whitney Air New Zealand Services |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant had sexual relationship with 14 year old daughter of co-worker (“Z”) – Arrested and returned to work after released on bail – Respondent realised likely staff may take view applicant guilty and make views known to him - Told employees not to harass applicant and he was innocent until proven otherwise – Applicant returned to work – Alleged disadvantaged by respondent's actions following incidents involving other employees – Applicant pleaded guilty and applied for sentence deferral - Court indicated deferral possible if imprisonment meant applicant likely to be dismissed - Respondent did not confirm would be dismissed - Applicant imprisoned then dismissed - Authority found fair and reasonable employer would not have done anything to influence sentencing - Justified in refusing to confirm dismissal likely until knew outcome of sentencing - None of respondent's actions unjustified – No disadvantage - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Misconduct - Under disciplinary policy, respondent entitled to consider continued employment having regard to its reputation, responsibilities of applicant, nature of offence and other relevant factors - Applicant claimed conviction had no bearing on position and no effect on respondent's reputation – Authority did not accept because conduct occurred outside work could not amount to misconduct – Respondent entitled to consider continued employment when employee guilty of criminal offence at work or off duty – Publicity impacted on respondent's reputation – Fair and reasonable employer entitled to conclude sentencing meant applicant could not fulfil employment obligations, even taking into account possibility of home detention and leave - Applicant’s actions caused him to be placed in position where could not perform obligations – Also entitled to conclude circumstances (including nature of conviction and publication of sentencing) meant foundation of trust and confidence significantly undermined – Dismissal substantively justified - Respondent visited applicant in prison and left dismissal letter with officials - Fair and reasonable employer would have written to applicant prior to visit advising dismissal considered – Meeting could have been opportunity to explain or mitigate conduct – On that basis, dismissal unjustified – However, even with fair process, outcome would have been same – Remedies - Blameworthy conduct so significant not entitled to remedies, save as to reasonable contribution to costs – Contributory conduct 100 percent - PRACTICE AND PROCDURE - Publication of names of daughter, Z, and other employee prohibited - Publication of emails between Z's union and respondent also prohibited - Length of service 15 years and three months with respondent and its predecessor - Aircraft engineer |
| Result | Application dismissed (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl10(1) |
| Cases Cited | Craigie v Air New Zealand [2006] 1 ERNZ 147;Hayward v Tairawhiti Polytechnic unreported, Travis J, 3 Aug 2005, AC 43/05;Hodgson v The Warehouse [1998] 3 ERNZ 76 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 35_07.pdf [pdf 62 KB] |