| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 112/08 |
| Hearing date | 15 May 2008 |
| Determination date | 25 August 2008 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | G Ogilvie ; P Cullen |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Roper v Pikarere Farm Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Issue arose as to grazing of cattle on neighbour’s property - Respondent’s director (“S”) claimed told by applicant another person owned cattle and then next day sated was owner of cattle - S discovered applicant had arrangement with neighbour to graze applicant’s cattle in return for applicant mending boundary fence for neighbour - Neighbour had responsibility for half share of costs of boundary fence with respondent - Dispute arose about use of firewood by farm’s tenant without S’s authority - Tenant claimed applicant permitted taking of firewood - Applicant denied giving tenant permission - Following correspondence between S and applicant’s representative S dismissed applicant for serious misconduct, destroying relationship of trust and confidence between parties - Despite applicant being represented S delivered dismissal letter to applicant’s home and left it with applicant’s wife - Authority found each of issues of concern put to applicant - Found applicant had opportunity to reply and chose to do - Applicant claimed S predetermined outcome - Authority satisfied references S made in correspondence about conclusion was breach of trust and confidence not predetermination because letters qualified to enable comment - Authority found applicant not open, responsive and communicative over grazing arrangement - Found reasonable for S not to accept applicant’s explanation that believed grazing arrangement private matter having nothing to do with work - Found arrangement did relate to applicant’s employment requiring him to act responsively and in good faith - Found failure to act in good faith breach of applicant’s obligations in employment relationship - Authority found Mr Stevenson’s conclusion applicant lied about cattle conclusion open to fair and reasonable employer - Authority found S’s failure to give applicant opportunity to comment on some evidence unfair - However, found outcome would not have been different - Found other defects in procedure of way S handled firewood issue not fatal - Authority found way in which dismissal delivered not way fair and reasonable employer would have acted - Applicant represented and process for delivering decision should have been agreed upon - Authority found S able to justify conclusions reached - Dismissal justified - Farm manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s123;ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson (2006) 3 NZELR 155;The Chief Executive of Unitec Institute of Technology v Henderson unreported, Colgan CJ, 19 Mar 2007, AC 12/07 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 112_08.pdf [pdf 45 KB] |