| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 33/02 |
| Determination date | 19 February 2002 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | S Fonua ; M Crotty |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Paini v Nestle New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Misconduct - Careless driving - Fork hoist machine substantially damaged by being driven into racking - Accident not reported as required - Whether breach of safety rules through misuse of fork hoist machine - Full and fair investigation - Inspection of accident site - Explanation sought - Informed of potential consequences of investigation - Prepared to review decision - Contractual obligation to ensure safe work environment neglected by applicant - Grounds for dismissal reasonably established - Summary dismissal justified - No disparity of treatment - Employment Relations Authority not obliged to confine itself to consideration of party's submissions - Store person |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Air NZ Ltd v Samu [1994] 1 ERNZ 93;Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil NZ Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |