| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 77/10 |
| Hearing date | 11 Feb 2010 |
| Determination date | 29 March 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | A Hamel, N Eketone-Te Kanawa ; K Smith |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Tiopira v Byrnecut Mining (New Zealand) PTY Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed summary dismissal unjustified – Respondent argued dismissal substantively and procedurally justified – Respondent called applicant to meeting when concerned applicant had breached workplace safety standards – Respondent made clear to applicant expectations regarding health and safety – Respondent troubled by applicant’s casual attitude to safety following inspection – Respondent called applicant to second meeting – Respondent argued, lost trust and confidence in applicant after hearing applicant’s recollection of events – Respondent argued applicant not following respondent’s practices and not using professional skill and judgment regarding safety matters – Applicant summarily dismissed – Authority found dismissal carried out in context of significant health and safety considerations – Found applicant owed express and implied contractual safety obligations to workers under direction – Found appropriate of respondent to place matters of safety in position of primacy – Found parties had obligations under Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 – Found respondent’s obligations more onerous due to dangerous nature of industry – Found safety paramount issue in industry – Found respondent had obligation to address potential risk and entitled to seek positive contribution to process from senior staff – Credibility finding in favour of respondent – Found summary dismissal justified – Project foreman – Mining sector |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 s19 |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415;Air New Zealand Ltd v Samu [1994] 1 ERNZ 93;Fuiava v Air New Zealand [2006] 1 ERNZ 806 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 77_10.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |