| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 116/10 |
| Hearing date | 17 Mar 2010 |
| Determination date | 11 May 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | T Jackson ; S Turner |
| Location | Timaru |
| Parties | Gaut v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Altercation occurred between applicant and manager (L") - Dispute between parties as to nature of altercation - Respondent claimed applicant verbally abused L and slammed chiller door in her face - Applicant claimed did not verbally abuse L and went in to chiller to get away from L - Parties continued altercation in chiller with L saying way applicant speaking unacceptable and applicant allegedly saying he did not give a f**k - Applicant eventually complied with request to finish conversation in L's office - Disciplinary meeting held following day - At end of meeting, which lasted over 5 hours, applicant dismissed - Applicant previously had disciplinary meeting were given letter of concern about number of issues including not "back chatting" L - Found clear letter of concern not letter of warning - However, satisfied applicant on notice of conduct subsequently complained of - Respondent's evidence preferred - Altercation witnessed by co-workers who supported L's version of events - Found applicant so familiar with swearing as means of communication may even do it unconsciously - Authority satisfied applicant did verbally abuse L and did slam chiller door in her face - Found disciplinary meeting not perfect example of disciplinary meeting - Found was very long and ran well past normal finish time for working day - Found may have been more appropriate to adjourn meeting to consider possible outcomes - However, Authority not persuaded failures in procedure invalidated process - Found meeting took so long because respondent doing everything to ensure proper investigation - Found while applicant not provided with written statement of allegation could have had no doubt as to details of complaint - Authority not persuaded applicant made request for break or adjournment clear - Found applicant's claim what did was misconduct not serious misconduct lacked merit - Found respondent conducted thorough and comprehensive inquiry into allegations against applicant - Found respondent's actions those of fair and reasonable employer - Found case law clear that abusing a manager type of conduct that typically resulted in dismissal - Dismissal justified - Customer Services Representative" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 116_10.pdf [pdf 27 KB] |