| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 74/09 |
| Hearing date | 3 Feb 2009 |
| Determination date | 10 March 2009 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | S Scott ; P Pa'u |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Peel v Auckland Construction Equipment Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Respondent received formal compliant from staff member (“C”) - Respondent later received similar complaints from other staff - First meeting held – Applicant advised of allegations and given copy of C’s compliant – Applicant admitted making threats to staff members and asked for complaints to be provided in writing – Applicant suspended on full pay until decision regarding validity of C’s compliant made – Second meeting held following day – Respondent concluded applicant’s answer to allegations confirmed abusive behaviour – Respondent did not provide applicant with written statements by staff members – Respondent advised applicant needed to attend further disciplinary meeting - Applicant refused unless respondent covered travel cost – Applicant dismissed – Authority found investigations procedurally deficient – Found no notice given, relevant information not disclosed and pre-determination – Found despite procedural deficiencies, applicant’s admitted misconduct and lack of remorse justified instant dismissal – Authority noted even if dismissal was found to be procedurally unjustified, no remedies would be awarded due to 100 per cent contributory conduct – Dismissal justified – Truck/Crane Driver |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] 1 ERNZ 415 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 74_09.pdf [pdf 52 KB] |