| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 84/07 |
| Hearing date | 27 Feb 2007 |
| Determination date | 24 July 2007 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | P Cranney, S Moran ; A Scott-Howman |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Sefo v Sealord Shellfish Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant worked on mussel opening line – Automated system counted mussels, attributed mussels to individual line workers and checked quality of mussels – If more than 3 percent of mussels rejected by quality checker then percentage subtracted from individual worker’s final pay – Malfunction meant system unable to attribute mussels to particular workers – Respondent claimed applicant incited co-workers to “cheat” following malfunction – Applicant suspended from work prior to formal investigation – Union representative challenged decision to suspend – Authority accepted respondent’s argument that suspension reasonable as investigation required public consultation with other workers – Suspension justified – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Manager claimed applicant left position on opening line, approached co-worker (“A”), and said “go for it the belt is stuffed” – Applicant denied saying “go for it” – A claimed fifty to sixty percent certain applicant said “go for it” – Formal complaint lodged against applicant by second co-worker (“B”) – B claimed saw applicant approach other line workers and had also spoken with A following incident – Respondent investigated co-workers who worked same shift as applicant – Third co-worker (“C”) claimed approached by applicant – However, no co-workers investigated heard words “go for it” or thought applicant encouraging co-workers to cheat – At investigation meeting respondent alleged applicant told at least three workers to “go for it” – Authority found allegation extraordinary given findings of co-worker interviews – Interviews effectively ruled out all employees apart from A as an employee applicant spoke to following belt malfunction – Discrepancy in evidence where respondent’s witnesses told Authority that regardless of actual words used A sure encouraged to cheat by applicant – A told Authority that was not sure what applicant had said – Authority found unsafe for respondent to conclude A correct in perception when was unsure of exactly what was heard – A asked by respondent to put percentage figure on certainty to avoid uncertain phrases – Manager gave evidence that satisfied summary dismissal appropriate when A made estimate over fifty percent – Authority found key witness questioned only after decision made and in effect was not absolutely certain applicant said “go for it” – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Authority found applicant contributed to situation giving rise to dismissal when left position in line when belt malfunctioned – Contributory conduct 20 percent – Applicant’s actions not those expected of senior experienced worker – Respondent’s derisory comments and imprudent actions inappropriate for employee in leadership position – Reinstatement declined – Clear evidence that applicant suffered considerable humiliation and injury to feelings – Evidence unchallenged – Compensation of $12,000 appropriate – Costs reserved – Mussel opener |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (Reduced to 4 months less earnings) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($15,000 reduced to $12,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 84_07.pdf [pdf 55 KB] |