| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 64/09 |
| Hearing date | 23 Feb 2009 |
| Determination date | 26 February 2009 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | R Upton ; D France, G Mayes |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | McCauley v SCA Hygiene Australasia Ltd |
| Summary | INTERIM INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant sought interim reinstatement following summary dismissal for misconduct – Respondent argued dismissal justified for failure to follow lawful instructions – Applicant instructed by supervisor to attend respondent’s medical centre following work injury – Applicant refused instruction but later sought attention from family doctor - Disciplinary investigation concluded failure to follow instructions amounted to misconduct and final written warning issued – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed arguable case existed under three heads – First, whether actual instructions were given – Second, whether instructions to only see respondent doctor lawful – Third, whether delay in seeking medical attention constituted failure to follow instructions - Authority found arguable case under all heads – Applicant claimed financial hardship, loss of reputation, ongoing stress and embarrassment not compensable – Argued lost trust and confidence in applicant due to history of misconduct – Compensation adequate – Short duration of substantive hearing weighs against reinstatement – Found balance of convenience in respondent’s favour due to unlikelihood of financial hardship and short duration of substantive hearing – Found overall justice favoured status quo – Conditional reinstatement inappropriate – Interim reinstatement declined - Product Operator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA s127;ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 64_09.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |