| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 73/09 |
| Hearing date | 17 Nov 2008 |
| Determination date | 10 March 2009 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | M Swarbrick ; P McBride |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Fleet v Idea Services Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Respondent received complaints from two service users (“A” and “B”) that applicant acted inappropriately and used inappropriate language towards them and other service users - During interview with A and B about alleged incidents further allegations made that applicant hit another service user (“Z”) with cattle prod when wet bed and failed to administer Panadol when requested - Respondent advised applicant of allegations - Agreed that applicant would not work but remain on full pay - Applicant initially represented by Union, then appointed alternative legal counsel - Applicant advised respondent not attending scheduled disciplinary meeting - After difficulties arranging time, first disciplinary meeting held - Applicant denied allegations - Respondent undertook further interviews of staff and service users - Z non-verbal so unable to be interviewed by respondent - Z interviewed by clinical psychologist to assess capacity to give version of events - Concluded Z did not understand concept of being hurt by someone and memory of past events limited - At second meeting applicant continued to deny allegations - Respondent conducted further interviews with A and B as concerned about veracity of information received from initial interviews - Information from interviews made available to applicant, and third meeting arranged - At meeting applicant given opportunity to provide further explanations - Applicant dismissed for serious misconduct - Authority found hitting service user could constitute serious misconduct justifying dismissal - Applicant’s position being sole charge was important consideration - Authority found respondent conducted full and fair investigation and reached conclusions of fair and reasonable employer - Dismissal justified - Community Support Worker |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA Second schedule cl10 |
| Cases Cited | NZ Crippled Children's Society Inc v van der Molen unreported Palmer J, 21 Aug 1992, CEC 36/92;Shutt v IHC Counties unreported K Anderson, 5 Mar 2004, AA 76/04 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 73_09.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |