| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 365/09 |
| Determination date | 13 October 2009 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | P Wicks ; P Skelton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Minhinnick v New Zealand Steel Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Misconduct - Applicant dismissed for failing to provide shift cover - Respondent already issued applicant with final written warning for same issue and actions breach of code of conduct - Applicant admitted was at golf tournament during day shift and misread roster and thought on call for night shift - Applicant’s absence meant insufficient staff to operate steel production line - Following disciplinary meetings applicant dismissed - Respondent considered transferring applicant to another position but manager for one job refused and applicant said other position not suitable due to existing back problem - Applicant argued failure to provide shift cover through genuine mistake not serious misconduct - Authority found no genuine misunderstanding of shift roster - Found open to respondent to characterise conduct as repeated and serious - Applicant argued final written warning invalid because previous warning expired - Found final written warning valid as not issued because applicant already under warning and applicant outside 90 day period for challenging final written warning by way of personal grievance - Applicant argued respondent failed to properly consider alternatives to dismissal - Found respondent genuinely explored prospect of transfer to another position - No evidence other employees treated more leniently for similar misconduct - Dismissal justified - Operator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s174 |
| Cases Cited | Angel v Fonterra Co-operative Group [2006] ERNZ 1080 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 365_09.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |