| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 153/09 |
| Hearing date | 13 Oct 2009 |
| Determination date | 16 October 2009 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | B Henderson ; N Henderson |
| Location | New Plymouth |
| Parties | Knight v Offshore Marine Services (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL- Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified – Respondent argued followed fair procedures therefore entitled to conclude serious misconduct for negligence or gross incompetence – Applicant instructed to turn on radiator fan to cool rig engine – Applicant failed to carry out instructions and black out occurred – Incident extremely serious as posed danger to health, safety and local environment – Investigation held – Applicant claimed instructions inadequate, not in writing, and too brief – Applicant denied causing incident and claimed incident due to problem in secondary system – Claimed disparate treatment as employee (“X”) who caused previous black out not dismissed – Respondent argued applicant interviewed on at least five occasions, given opportunities for explanation, and represented in all meetings – Argued applicant gave inconsistent explanations affecting applicant’s credibility – Argued tested applicant’s claim incident caused by secondary system’s failure, however, no evidence found to support claim – Argued X not dismissed as X admitted to misconduct and agreed to counselling while applicant denied allegation and refused counselling - Respondent concluded applicant’s failure to follow instructions caused incident and constituted serious misconduct – Applicant dismissed - Authority found applicant received instructions to turn on fan – Found incumbent on applicant to ensure properly briefed to resume duty – Found incumbent on applicant to seek clarification if instructions remained unclear – Found, given applicant’s qualifications and experience, incumbent on applicant to be familiar with rig’s operation and able to competently manage activities on board – Found respondent entitled to reject applicant’s explanations based on applicant’s inconsistent evidence – Found investigation fair therefore conclusion applicant caused incident and conduct constituted serious misconduct warranting dismissal justified - Found no disparate treatment - Dismissal justified – Mechanic |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Bagchi v The Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department unreported, Colgan CJ, 26 Sept 2008, AC 40/08 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 153_09.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |