| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 401/08 |
| Hearing date | 5 Sep 2008 - 8 Sep 2008 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 24 November 2008 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | H White ; S Wilson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Samuels v Skycity Management Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Reinstatement sought – Applicant failed to detect mistake made by dealer at gaming table was supervising – Applicant dismissed by respondent following investigation and disciplinary process – Respondent reviewed decision to dismiss at applicant’s union’s request but confirmed dismissal – Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified because respondent’s actions not that of fair and reasonable employer – Claimed support provided inadequate and incident which gave rise to dismissal not consistent with incident which had given rise to previously issued warning – Applicant invited to meeting with respondent to discuss mistake – Applicant argued nine out of ten supervisors would have missed mistake – Respondent told applicant seriously considering dismissal and invited to another meeting to discuss any further issues - Respondent concluded dismissal – Respondent argued applicant had received earlier final written warning if further issues due to applicant’s inattention, then dismissal possible outcome – Respondent argued concluded applicant did not have attention required to be supervisor during table games – Respondent considered demotion inappropriate – Authority found destruction of video tape of incident did not adversely affect applicant’s rights during respondent’s investigation – Found applicant not dismissed for error but for lack of attention and failure to notice error – Found no dispute applicant did not notice error – Respondent identified applicant’s “checkered employment history” showed evidence of attention issues – Respondent previously gave applicant “addition to final warning” – Applicant claimed following addition to final warning not given enough support to ensure maintained concentration and avoided further incidents – Authority found applicant given level of support given to other supervisors – Found applicant’s failing clearly spelled out and consequences of continued failure explained – Authority rejected argument that final incident should be seen in isolation – Found applicant could not have been in any doubt repeated failures could result in dismissal – Found although number of distractions made concentration difficult, distractions not overwhelming – Dismissal justified – Gaming supervisor |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Trotter v Telecom Corp of NZ Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 401_08.pdf [pdf 39 KB] |