| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 214/09 |
| Hearing date | 18 Aug 2009 |
| Determination date | 14 December 2009 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | A Sharma ; G Downing |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Gutsell v Burgess & Crowley Civil Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Misconduct - Applicant received verbal warning for driving incident - About seven months later applicant given warning for knocking over survey pegs when given clear instructions to be careful of them - Next day applicant again knocked over survey pegs - Applicant given final written warning - Warning clearly stated dismissal possibility if another incident occurred - Later that month applicant failed to follow instructions and damaged kerbing - Applicant sent home and told would be spoken to next morning - Respondent spoke to witnesses - Applicant failed to provide explanation for actions when asked - Applicant dismissed for misconduct - Found respondent’s Code of Conduct and employment agreement clearly set out strict requirements relating to health and safety and damage to property and equipment - Found many conflicts of evidence between parties on many points - Respondent’s evidence preferred - Found applicant’s evidence not believable - Found applicant failed to follow instruction - Found disciplinary process consistent with employment agreement and conducted fairly - Found applicant provided with opportunity to give explanation - Dismissal justified - Truck driver |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 214_09.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |