| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 162/09 |
| Hearing date | 22 Sep 2009 - 23 Sep 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 27 October 2009 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | T Oldfield ; P McBride |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Macleod v Spotless Services (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant refused request by telephonist to attend Emergency Department (“ED”) to perform work while on paid meal break - Applicant claimed not told request urgent and assessed ED not busy - Claimed did not respond as on meal break and orderlies did not take instructions from telephonists - Applicant claimed actions not deliberate and wilful disobedience - Claimed long standing, loyal employee, had responded to urgent requests in the past, and no indication would refuse in future - Applicant claimed how manager (“W”) reached decision to dismiss unclear and issues with investigation - Respondent claimed applicant failed to follow lawful and reasonable instruction, failure could have resulted in serious threat to patient safety and applicant failed to perform to required standard - Authority found ED was busy - Found accepted practice that telephonists communicated with orderlies - Found applicant had opportunity to obtain all information held by W - Found W agreed not to use prejudicial personal observations made by two employees - Found applicant had opportunity to respond and comment before dismissal decision made - Authority rejected claim W had two employees to rewrite statements to suit desired outcome - Found W’s approach to investigation not ideal but not fatally flawed - Found applicant’s decision to continue meal break was error of judgement - Found refusal partly based on request coming from co-worker applicant had issues with - Found open to respondent to conclude applicant failed to follow lawful and reasonable instruction - Found open to fair and reasonable employer to conclude applicant’s actions could have resulted in serious threat to patient safety - Found reasonable to conclude applicant failed to perform to required standard - Applicant’s claim W should have told applicant if apologised or accepted any wrong-doing then outcome would have been “completely different” rejected - Found was for applicant to raise his remorse in mitigation - Found applicant’s service record considered - Authority found allegation proven and ground for dismissal - Dismissal justified - Orderly |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 162_09.pdf [pdf 29 KB] |