| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 42/10 |
| Hearing date | 2 Jul 2009 - 3 Jul 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 01 March 2010 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | M Knowler ; S Dalzell |
| Location | Queenstown |
| Parties | Adams v Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant raised issues with colleague about flight control instructions – Colleague complained to manager about applicant’s interaction and communication style being angry and demeaning – Investigation into incident established colleague had met all control obligations – Applicant disagreed with conclusion – Applicant disputed colleague’s complaint and alleged colleague raised voice and became aggressive towards applicant – Witness confirmed colleague’s version of events – Applicant invited to attend disciplinary meeting – Applicant claimed suffered from workplace stress – Applicant dismissed – Authority found fair and reasonable employer would prefer colleague’s account of events – Found decision to dismiss applicant not based on one-off incident – Found applicant knew manner of communication could fall short of respondent’s expectations – Found colleague did not expect complaint would result in dismissal, rather corrective action – Found fair and reasonable employer would not have found serious misconduct – Found fair and reasonable employer would not have considered historical matters – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Found applicant challenged colleague contrary to respondent’s values and knew required to reflect on communication techniques – Found applicant did not contribute to respondent’s decision to categorise behaviour as serious misconduct – One third contributory conduct – Found chances of applicant finding further employment unlikely as respondent only employer in New Zealand – Found reimbursement of lost wages for 9 months appropriate – $12,500 compensation appropriate – Found awards subject to one third reduction for contributory conduct – Air traffic controller |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost remuneration (9 months salary)(less alternative income for period and reduced by one third) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($12,500)(reduced by one third) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s124;ERA s128(2);ERA s128(3) |
| Cases Cited | Ashton v Shoreline Hotel [1994] 1 ERNZ 421;Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 42_10.pdf [pdf 42 KB] |