| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 225/07 |
| Hearing date | 15 May 2007 |
| Determination date | 01 August 2007 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | K Andersen ; K Thompson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Butler v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed respondent wrongly applied staff travel policy and failed to conduct fair investigation into disciplinary allegations – Claimed decision to dismiss harsh given applicant’s personal circumstances at time – While on sick leave, applicant used staff travel privileges to attend overseas memorial service for recently deceased grandfather – Respondent accepted applicant unwell and needed to be on sick leave – However argued improper to leave country on staff travel privilege to resolve personal issues while on sick leave – Argued reasonable for respondent to expect applicant would remain in country to recuperate – Respondent argued applicant saw pamphlet prohibiting staff travel while on sick leave – Applicant claimed never saw pamphlet – Applicant signed declaration on travel application stating understood policy prohibited staff travel while on sick leave – Respondent scheduled disciplinary meeting – Applicant claimed not aware of policy on staff travel – Applicant claimed staff travel division knew policy and should have directed applicant to manager to obtain approval – Also claimed manager knew applicant on sick leave and intended to access staff travel – Manager denied knowing applicant wanted to travel while on sick leave – Respondent alleged every crew member received file drop copy of staff travel policy and policy also available to employees on intranet – Applicant claimed no intention to break any rule and not clear whether rule applied to staff travelling as nominees – Applicant’s doctor submitted applicant not well to work but of sane mind to travel – Respondent concluded applicant’s actions amounted to serious misconduct and employment terminated – Respondent argued staff travel division administration employees to process tickets not authorise travel requests – Authority found if employees not eligible to access privileges then had to apply for exemption – Staff travel policy well documented, distributed and available – Authority found applicant knew or ought to have reasonably known of policy – Authority rejected argument that applicant’s state of mind meant unable to understand potential employment difficulties with accessing staff travel while on sick leave – Authority found evidence showed applicant mindful of employment rights and obligations – Authority found respondent had reasonable basis for forming view that actions of applicant breached staff travel policy – Authority found claimed delays in disciplinary investigation did not amount to serious flaws in process – Found reasonable that employer would expect employee on paid sick leave to remain in country to recuperate – Applying principles in Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415 Authority concluded applicant given fair opportunity to comment on allegations – Evidence did not support finding applicant treated differently from other staff – No unjustified dismissal – Flight attendant |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415;Sutherland v Air New Zealand Limited [1993] 2 ERNZ 386 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 225_07.pdf [pdf 58 KB] |