| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 198/09 |
| Hearing date | 1 Dec 2009 |
| Determination date | 14 December 2009 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | J Langford ; P McBride |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Gartner v Spotless Services (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed punishment of dismissal unjustified in circumstances – Claimed investigation drawn out for too long – Respondent argued applicant’s dismissal justified where serious electrical shock suffered by apprentice under applicant’s supervision – Respondent argued applicant admitted had fundamentally failed in supervisory responsibilities – Respondent had zero tolerance policy over safety issues – Respondent had matter investigated by health and safety manager and report provided to national operations manager (“D”) – D invited applicant to disciplinary meeting – Authority found respondent concerned that through applicant’s negligence, apprentice injured – Respondent argued negligence followed applicant’s failures to follow safety requirements and adequately supervise apprentice – Applicant accepted did not comply with required supervision procedures – Applicant summarily dismissed because accepted failed to follow safety requirements – Authority found red flag to applicant that apprentice concerned how to complete work – Found applicant agreed apprentice said was not confident but applicant said should continue anyway – Applicant accepted advised apprentice to use alternative method that was not approved practice – D considered applicant’s duty of care to apprentice, zero tolerance of unsafe work practices and applicant’s disregard of supervisory responsibilities in concluding serious misconduct through gross negligence – Authority found applicant not prejudiced by length of time of disciplinary process – Found applicant did nothing wrong deliberately, however, made serious misjudgements – Found fair and reasonable employer would consider consequences of negligence – Found respondent under no obligation to accept applicant’s alternatives to dismissal – Found open to fair and reasonable employer to conclude lost trust and confidence in applicant following serious failings – Dismissal justified – Electrical supervisor |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448;Click Clack International Ltd v James [1994] 1 ERNZ 15 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 198_09.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |