Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 189/10
Hearing date 9 Mar 2010
Determination date 26 April 2010
Member M Urlich
Representation G Lloyd ; T Cotton
Location Auckland
Parties Villegas v Visypet (NZ) Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed conducts not sufficiently serious to cumulatively amount to serious misconduct – Respondent argued dismissal justified for continuous failure to follow lawful instructions – First incident – Applicant conducted controlled collapse of stack however did not report incident as required by health and safety policies – Applicant received first written warning - Applicant claimed not reportable incident because no injury caused – Respondent argued reportable as had “potential” to cause injury or damage pursuant to policy – Second incident – Applicant involved in near miss incident and failed to report incident – Applicant received second written warning – Third incident – Applicant drove fork hoist unsafely and failed to report incident – Final written warning received – Applicant dismissed for failure to continuously follow specific instructions and meet health and safety obligations – Personal grievance raised - Authority found incident reportable, failure to do so breach of policy, therefore warning justified – Found applicant put on notice repeated failure to report may result in dismissal –Declined argument long period between first and second warning made first incident stale – Accepted inconsistencies in respondent categorising second and third warnings, however, did not undermine cumulative effect of warnings - Found second and third incidents cumulatively amounted to serious misconduct – Dismissal justified – Fort Hoist Driver
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A
Cases Cited Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] 1 ERNZ 415
Number of Pages 7
PDF File Link: aa 189_10.pdf [pdf 26 KB]