Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 179/10
Hearing date 2 Mar 2010
Determination date 20 April 2010
Member D King
Representation S Mitchell ; S Eddington
Location Auckland
Parties Robinson v Rentokil Initial Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed conduct did not constitute serious misconduct warranting dismissal – Respondent argued dismissal justified – Applicant attended disciplinary meeting to answer three allegations – First, respondent alleged applicant breached company rules by instructing employee (“X”) to not complete service due to hazard – Applicant explained instruction given as hazard would put X’s safety at risk - Second, alleged applicant failed to report health and safety risk – Applicant explained reported hazard to supervisors - Third, alleged applicant failed to attend service meeting as requested and timesheet reflected applicant present – Applicant explained believed did not need to go and went to pub instead – Applicant admitted falsifying timesheet – Respondent concluded applicant’s explanations unacceptable and conduct constituted serious misconduct – Applicant dismissed – Authority found applicant reported hazard to supervisors – Found respondent knew hazard existed before applicant and respondent considered hazard unsafe for servicing – Found applicant’s instructions to not complete service could not constitute serious misconduct – Found applicant’s normal duties to attend meetings therefore not entitled to decide not to go – Found non-attendance not failure to obey lawful instructions therefore not serious misconduct – Found applicant admitted to falsifying timesheets – Found conduct sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal – Found dismissal justified with regards to falsification of timesheet
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: aa 179_10.pdf [pdf 35 KB]