| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 123/10 |
| Hearing date | 12 May 2010 |
| Determination date | 14 May 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | A McKenzie ; G Pollak |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Morrison v Westland Co-Operative Dairy Company Ltd |
| Summary | INTERIM INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant was witnessed driving forklift negligently or recklessly causing damage to respondent’s property – Investigation held – Disciplinary meeting concluded applicant committed serious misconduct – Particular weight given to final written warning issued for smoking in workplace – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed arguable case as respondent gave too much weight to final written warning not relevant to conduct at issue – Claimed conduct amounted to only “ordinary” misconduct – Respondent argued no arguable case as applicant did not come to Authority with “clean hands” – Argued disciplinary process fair – Authority found arguable case as conduct at issue not within scope of final written warning - Found final written warning may have been given too much weight – Found collective employment agreement provided dismissal warranted for further conduct falling within scope of final warning - Found whether conduct amounted to serious or ordinary misconduct serious question to be tried – Found clean hands argument unattractive as no employee with previous warnings would be able to obtain interim relief – Applicant claimed balance of convenience in their favour as would suffer financial hardship – Respondent argued balance in their favour as applicant paid dismissal notice to mitigate against reinstatement – Found convenience favoured applicant as financial hardship outweighed inconvenience to respondent – Applicant confirmed would stand behind undertaking as to damages – Found overall justice favoured applicant – Found no evidence of dysfunctional employment relationship to make reinstatement impractical – Found applicant sought to prove themselves if reinstated – Found given reinstatement primary remedy where claimed, appropriate application be granted – Authority directed applicant to take particular care of respondent’s property and work in exemplary fashion during interim reinstatement – Store person/Forklift Driver |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA s125;ERA s127;ERA s127(4);ERA s127(5) |
| Cases Cited | Cliff v Air New Zealand Limited [2005] ERNZ 1;George v Carter Holt Harvey Wood products Nelson unreported Couch J, 10 Apr 2008, CC 6/08;Melville v Chatham Island Council [1999] 2 ERNZ 70 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 123_10.pdf [pdf 27 KB] |