| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 202/10 |
| Hearing date | 12 Apr 2010 - 13 Apr 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 30 April 2010 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | A McInally ; P Skelton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | King v New Zealand Steel Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant summarily dismissed for serious misconduct following investigation into near miss health and safety incident - Applicant instructed to electrically isolate equipment to allow maintenance to be performed - Applicant failed to isolate equipment properly - Applicant mistakenly verified equipment had been isolated correctly - Equipment accidentally started by employees carrying out maintenance - No employees injured as moving parts of equipment not engaged but no dispute that if had been employees could have been seriously injured or killed - Another employee (“W”) involved in failure to ensure equipment properly isolated given written warning for failure to follow correct isolation procedure - Applicant claimed disparity of treatment between applicant and W - Authority found respondent had sufficient reason for disparity of treatment - Found applicant’s failure compounded by incorrectly verifying formally in writing had isolated equipment when had not - Found W failed to discharge responsibility but did not hold out to anyone that had done anything - Found fair and reasonable employer could conclude applicant more culpable than W, although both had high degrees of blame for incident - Found fair and reasonable employer would have viewed safety as paramount factor in all circumstances - Found applicant’s conduct capable of being viewed as serious misconduct - Found conduct deeply impairing of basic trust and confidence in employment relationship justifying dismissal - Applicant claimed discriminated against on grounds was union delegate - Found given findings about respondent’s actions no grounds for claim of discrimination - Applicant claimed had been distracted by personal issues - Applicant’s daughter had died previous year - Other children in his care being progressively removed by welfare agencies - Found fair and reasonable employer would have been sympathetic to applicant’s personal issues but would not have placed such weight on them as to displace health and safety concerns - Authority satisfied respondent did not ignore applicant’s 29 years of service, loss of house tied to employment, loss of status in community, and prospect of relocation away from community and family to obtain alternative employment - Found fair and reasonable employer would have dismissed applicant notwithstanding availability of lesser forms of disciplinary action, and sympathy it had for applicant’s personal and domestic circumstances - Dismissal justified - Electrician |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Fuiava v Air New Zealand [2006] 1 ERNZ 806 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 202_10.pdf [pdf 41 KB] |