| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 205/09 |
| Hearing date | 23 Jun 2009 |
| Determination date | 25 June 2009 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | P Skelton ; A Lubbe |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | P v A Bank |
| Summary | INTERIM INJUNCTION - Application for interim reinstatement - Applicant summarily dismissed for serious misconduct - Applicant and his partner (“F”) attended leaving function for branch manager at restaurant - Function was primarily for branch employees rather than official business function - Evidence in dispute but alleged applicant had argument with partner outside restaurant - Applicant and F given ride home by co-worker and her husband where alleged further incident took place - Co-worker feared for F’s safety and she and other colleagues went into applicant’s home to check on F’s welfare - Alleged applicant pushed passed several people on way out of house - Disciplinary investigation conducted - Applicant’s explanation of events not believed and applicant summarily dismissed - Authority found applicant had arguable case - Found appeared respondent acted on basis of somewhat exaggerated hearsay accounts of incidents - Some witnesses given information about incident between applicant and F on previous weekend which may have coloured perception of situation - Possible applicant’s conduct not misconduct of sufficient seriousness to warrant dismissal based on definition of misconduct in employment agreement - Authority found balance of convenience favoured applicant - Authority found risk to other staff if applicant returned low and controllable as no evidence of any improper behaviour by applicant at workplace - Applicant claimed had good working relationships with other branch employees, and none of them opposed interim reinstatement - Applicant worried about possibility career in industry might be destroyed, would experience financial problems, and have difficulty finding alternative employment given current economic climate - Authority found not all damage arising from those issues remediable by compensation if grievance established - Authority found overall justice favoured applicant - Authority found respondent’s questions about applicant’s ability to meet undertaking at to damages insufficient reason to deny reinstatement - Authority found applicant should not be deprived of interim reinstatement because of his counsel’s delay in commencing proceedings - Reinstatement is primary remedy - Interim reinstatement ordered |
| Result | Application granted ; Interim reinstatement ordered ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Cases Cited | Swann & Ors v ACI NZ Ltd and NZ Amalgamated Engineering etc IUOW [1990] 3 NZILR 262 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 205_09.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |