| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 112/10 |
| Hearing date | 6 Oct 2009 - 7 Oct 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 07 May 2010 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | W Clark (Applicant in person) ; P McBride |
| Location | Invercargill |
| Parties | Clark v Idea Services Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed suspension and summary dismissal unjustified – Respondent argued dismissal for serious misconduct procedurally and substantively justified – Meeting held to discuss allegations applicant failed to follow proper procedures and made derogatory comments about respondent’s management – Respondent postponed investigation to give applicant time to respond – Applicant attempted to rally support from work colleagues over allegations – Respondent requested further meeting as applicant’s conduct inappropriate – Parties concluded at meeting suspension appropriate until further meeting held – Respondent subsequently advised applicant’s role and remote workplace location required high levels of trust and confidence in applicant – Advised applicant’s conduct damaged trust and confidence - Applicant made no comments on alternatives to dismissal - Applicant dismissed for serious misconduct – Authority found suspension lawful and justified – Found employment agreement provided for suspension and applicant agreed to suspension on pay – No disadvantage – Found applicant’s conduct constituted serious misconduct – Found despite applicant’s undertaking to restore respondent’s trust and confidence, subsequent conduct of rallying support tarnished genuineness of undertaking – Found no substance in applicant’s claim unaware of policies when policies available on intranet – Found respondent needed high levels of trust and confidence in applicant due to nature and location of role – Found disciplinary procedure thorough and fair – Dismissal justified – Authority ordered applicant’s partner (“X”) to make formal written apology to witness following allegations X verbally attacked witness – Authority noted respondent’s claim conduct constituted contempt, however witness already gave evidence before alleged incident occurred – Noted if witness had not already given evidence, consequence for X would have been more significant – Area Manager |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Orders made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s196(1)(a) |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards and Hostesses of NZ IUOW v Air NZ Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 584;Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483;Sefo v Sealord Shellfish Limited [2008] ERNZ 178 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 112_10.pdf [pdf 44 KB] |