| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 101/08 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jan 2008 |
| Determination date | 18 March 2008 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | G Finnegan ; G Bevan |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Main v Linfox Logistics New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant’s manager (“L”) received complaint from member of public that vehicle damaged by vehicle of respondent’s – Applicant only employee in area at time – L investigated scene of accident and interviewed complainant and witnesses – Witnesses stated saw driver inspect collision then drive away – At end of shift, applicant left without filing report – Next morning, L called disciplinary meeting and advised of right to support person – L told applicant about accident and witness’ statements - Applicant claimed did not report accident as unaware it occurred – L stood down applicant while investigated further and advised not reporting accident constituted serious misconduct – L advised applicant in letter of all rights before second disciplinary meeting – L consulted experts on driving techniques and whether would have felt impact – L concluded no way applicant could not have known hit car or seen damage – L concluded applicant made no attempt to identify owner of vehicle or file incident report – Applicant dismissed - Applicant argued respondent’s disciplinary procedures envisaged only applicant’s manager being involved in disciplinary matters, whereas L consulted further management – Authority found decision to dismiss not vitiated by involvement of others – Applicant claimed witnesses not properly interviewed and respondent improperly rejected applicant’s explanation – Authority found decision to dismiss not based on differences between witnesses and applicant’s accounts, but on applicant’s knowledge of having had accident – Applicant argued previous unrelated warning should not have been taken into account – Authority found failure to obey instruction not so disparate from failure to report accident as to negate decision to dismiss - Found respondent carried out fair and reasonable investigation and reasonably concluded entitled to dismiss applicant - Dismissal justified - Driver |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Veisinia Pulu v Guardian Healthcare Group Ltd unreported, 9 Feb 2007, R Arthur, AA 27/07 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 101_08.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |