| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 11/10 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jun 2009 - 1 May 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 18 January 2010 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | M Ryan ; R Webster |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Spemann v Hirequip Ltd |
| Summary | UNJSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustifiably suspended and dismissed by respondent – Applicant’s supervisor (“S”) complained to manager applicant had refused request to complete work and swore at S – Applicant confirmed had sworn at S and refused request to shift vehicle off trailer – Respondent suspended applicant until formal investigation conducted – Applicant made no comment about suspension – Respondent found applicant had refused to carry out instructions of supervisor and became aggressive and abusive – Respondent found applicant also failed to comply with S’s instruction to pack up tools and go home – Applicant dismissed – Authority found respondent based decision to dismiss applicant substantially on incident with S and not on because of earlier problems – Found applicant dismissed because of deliberate disobedience and insubordination to lawful and reasonable request by S – Found respondent considered applicant employed for long period so knew not to blatantly disobey supervisor over simple request – Found respondent’s actions regarding suspension and dismissal those of fair and reasonable employer – Found dismissal justified – Authority noted if found suspension or dismissal unjustified then contribution likely to have been 60 percent or more – Field Service Mechanic |
| Result | Applications dismissed (Dismissal)(Disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 11_10.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |