| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 47/08 |
| Hearing date | 4 Apr 2008 |
| Determination date | 21 April 2008 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | K Gill, J Arneja ; M Gould |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Hill v New Zealand Van Lines Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant withdrew claim for reinstatement at investigation meeting – Co-worker (“C”) claimed asked by applicant if wanted to smoke marijuana cigarette – Applicant driving company vehicle at time – C claimed applicant smoked marijuana cigarette – C claimed knew smell of marijuana as son user – C told supervisor of incident, who return reported allegation to manager (“W”) – W obtained further information and written signed statement of incident from C at C’s home as no privacy at workplace – W claimed told address of C by C’s partner also employed by respondent – C gave W written signed statement of incident – W gave applicant letter stating allegation made and invited applicant to disciplinary meeting – Applicant denied allegations – Applicant suspended at disciplinary meeting – Applicant told W that C’s partner smoked marijuana during work trip – Authority found disciplinary meeting adjourned so W could speak to C because of applicant’s denial – W visited C at home again and confirmed C’s statement – W concluded serious misconduct and no reason for C to make up accusation – W told applicant believed C’s version of events and dismissed applicant – Authority made credibility finding in favour of W and C – Authority rejected applicant’s argument that dismissal setup or respondent had ulterior motive – Authority noted W left open to allegation of bias when visited C at home – However, found C gave consistent evidence, that W put to applicant and applicant unable to contradict evidence – Authority found no predetermination by W – Authority found W’s process not perfect but not fatal because applicant on notice of allegation and given sufficient details about possible outcome – Authority found coincidental C had partner employed with respondent – Found W took applicant’s denial into account genuinely and recognised further enquiry required of C – Authority accepted W’s evidence that reached honestly held belief when believed C – Found reasonable for W to rely on information available given lack of company policy – Authority found W not required to raise warning as possible option given gravity of offence – COSTS – Respondent asked Authority to consider that applicant withdrew reinstatement claim at eleventh hour – Respondent argued fair contribution to costs would be $6,457 – Authority not satisfied entire actual costs to be starting point – Authority ordered applicant to pay respondent costs of $4,080.05 – Packer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs in favour of respondent ($4,080.05) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 47_08.pdf [pdf 60 KB] |