| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 223/10 |
| Hearing date | 16 Mar 2010 |
| Determination date | 11 May 2010 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | AM McInally ; P Skelton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Lowrie v New Zealand Steel Ltd |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Applicant claimed grievance raised regarding final written warning – Authority found grievance raised orally but did not satisfy requirements of particularity – Found applicant failed to raise grievance within 90 days – Found applicant did not make reasonable arrangements for grievance to be raised – Found applicant mistaken that grievance already raised orally – Found no exceptional circumstances given knowledge and experience of what was required – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Respondent claimed applicant failed to raise concerns about issues of manning and safety in proper manner – Found outburst at manager unsatisfactory and required attention – Applicant union delegate – Found heightened tensions with union over programme of staffing efficiencies – Applicant ignored instruction not to operate shift with extra man – Final written warning issued – Applicant reacted angrily when informed safety task not completed – Series of disciplinary meetings followed – Found fair and reasonable employer would have recognised applicant’s outburst partly caused by mutual errors of understanding of safety policy – Found fair and reasonable employer would not consider events supported conclusion employment relationship had broken down to extent that no future for applicant – Found respondent should not have given such weight to earlier final written warning in making dismissal decision – Found dismissal not appropriate sanction for misconduct – Found manager only received coaching about safety procedures while applicant dismissed – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Found applicant long-serving, experienced and senior employee with leadership role and expected to set better example – 100 percent contributory conduct – Respondent strongly opposed reinstatement given applicant’s attitude to direction from managers and lack of vacancies – Found no practical difficulty in reinstatement – Found respondent on notice applicant sought reinstatement – Reinstatement ordered on conditions – No other remedies awarded – Kiln operator |
| Result | Application granted ; Reinstatement ordered ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s114(3);ERA s114(4);ERA s115(b);ERA s124;ERA s174 |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v V (2009) 6 NZELR 582;Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] ERNZ 517 ; [2008] NZSC 31;Wellington Road Transport IUW v Fletcher Construction [1983] ACJ 653 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 223_10.pdf [pdf 49 KB] |