| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 256/08 |
| Hearing date | 21 May 2008 |
| Determination date | 17 July 2008 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | L Foley ; D Traylor |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Duff v Chief Executive, Department of Corrections |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed when told by senior officer (“W”) that dismissed and had two weeks notice – Applicant later advised by W that dismissal a joke – Applicant claimed distressed by W’s actions and unfit to work – Applicant argued suffered post traumatic stress disorder as direct result of wrong actions of respondent – Applicant attended consultation with physician (“R”) who concluded no physical reason not to return to work – R reported to respondent that applicant using marijuana daily and applicant reported using “heaps” – Respondent suspended applicant and commenced investigation into applicant’s statement that using illegal drugs – Respondent argued given applicant’s role, any drug use justified dismissal – R’s report approved by applicant except for admission of daily recreational drug use habit – Respondent argued applicant vague in answers and R’s report more credible source of information – Respondent advised applicant believed serious misconduct occurred and sought response from applicant – Applicant denied using drugs when met with respondent and advised had undergone drug test – Parties agreed applicant would provide drug test results at conclusion of meeting – Results not provided to respondent during investigation before decision to dismiss made – Applicant provided drug tests results showing negative result to Authority – Authority found results were from earlier drug tests claimed by applicant – Applicant dismissed after respondent concluded compelling evidence of marijuana use – Authority found respondent’s code of conduct categorised serious misconduct for admitting to an offence – Authority found when applicant denied allegations matter clarified with R who stood by report – Authority found applicant’s denials inconsistent with evidence given during Authority investigation meeting – Found applicant consented to R passing on disclosure to respondent – Found respondent reached conclusions following full and fair enquiry – Found particular circumstances in this case included very high standards set by respondent for its employees – Dismissal justified – Prison officer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 256_08.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |