| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 37/08 |
| Hearing date | 23 Aug 2007 - 24 Aug 2007 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 09 April 2008 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | JA Burney ; M Kirk |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Corbett v Nelson Pine Industries Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant employed to spray paint ends of packs before packs taken off line and transported to clients – Applicant argued stopped painting packs and began cleaning up area to finish work just before work day ended – One unpainted pack remained on line – Applicant approached by team leader (“G”) who asked why spray painting of final pack not completed – Applicant argued always left last pack on line because task could be finished next day – Verbal altercation followed – Applicant called to manager’s (“M”) office and told complaint received from G – Applicant accepted became verbally aggressive – Applicant stated angry at G for telling M – Heated argument occurred between applicant and G – Applicant met with M and G and accepted had adjusted end of day procedure without fully informing line co-workers of change – Respondent argued final pack needed to be painted for shipment and dispatched promptly – Applicant called to disciplinary meeting by M – M put allegation of behavioural misconduct to applicant – M argued applicant raised hand to G in threatening manner and also verbally abused G – M concluded applicant’s behaviour amounted to serious misconduct – G argued applicant had failed to explain why shut down line – Applicant dismissed at conclusion of disciplinary meeting – Authority found none of respondent’s witnesses witnessed incident of serious misconduct – Found one witness excluded from respondent’s investigation because did not want to become involved – Authority found incident where applicant walked off when questioned symptomatic of attitude to authority – M argued applicant said “you can take the fucking job and stick it” – M argued “blown away” by applicant’s display of aggression and disrespect – Authority found summary dismissal result of respondent upholding complaint of threatening behaviour by G not because of previous warnings – Found respondent made genuine attempt to assist applicant in personal problems despite applicant’s refusal to participate – Found respondent conducted process fully, fairly and with integrity – Authority also found applicant failed to comply with obligations of house rules – Dismissal justified – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Authority dismissed applicant’s claim that disadvantaged by respondent raising historical timekeeping issues – Authority found issues not relied on by respondent for dismissal decision – Process operator |
| Result | Application dismissed (Dismissal) ; Application granted (Disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil NZ Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 37_08.pdf [pdf 49 KB] |