| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant (Ms Collins – Employee) failed breath alcohol tests after stopped at Police check point – Applicant stopped while travelling to work as rostered for international flight – Applicant convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol – Upon receiving failed breath test, applicant contacted respondent (Zeal 320 Ltd – Employer) “to call in sick” – Superintendent from New Zealand Police contacted Air New Zealand (“ANZ”) as concerned ANZ employees caught driving to work under influence of alcohol – Subsequently respondent provided with applicant’s breath test results – Respondent outlined concerns to applicant that possible, non-compliance with alcohol and drugs policy, brought respondent into disrepute as in ANZ uniform, in breach of operations manual as may have consumed alcohol within 10 hours of duty, and calling in sick at short notice delayed flight – Applicant told respondent believed had complied with requirement to report to work with zero blood alcohol level – Applicant referred to ANZ medical team for assessment – Applicant provided with summary of full investigation and told dismissal being considered – Applicant subsequently dismissed – Authority found could be reasonably assumed applicant knew obligations regarding consumption of alcohol prior to reporting for duty – Found very shortly before reporting for duty applicant had much higher level of blood alcohol than employment conditions allowed – Found respondent fairly and reasonably entitled to arrive at serious misconduct conclusion – Found reasonable for respondent to conclude actions of applicant contributed to bringing respondent to attention of Police – Authority noted logically impossible for practical purposes in circumstances and in employment setting to separate respondent and ANZ – Authority found respondent entitled to consider reason given false for calling in “sick” as part of overall matrix pertaining to breach of alcohol policy – Found serious misconduct conclusion justified – Applicant’s disparity of treatment argument rejected – Applicant’s argument that should have been offered rehabilitation programme rejected – Authority emphasised safety considerations dominant and critical factor in environment respondent operated – Dismissal justified – Airline Cabin Crew Attendant |