| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 265/10 |
| Hearing date | 13 Apr 2010 - 21 May 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 03 June 2010 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | S Hough ; R Upton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Nafoi v Complete First Aid Supplies Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant argued unjustifiably dismissed following allegations of drunken and unacceptable behaviour at work social function – Respondent claimed dismissal justified – Applicant drunk, loud and offensive at staff social function – Applicant invited to attend disciplinary meeting in respect of inappropriate language and offensive comments – Respondent obtained statements from employees present at function which confirmed allegations – Found statements not provided to applicant prior to decision to dismiss – Respondent claimed applicant’s behaviour so bad trust and confidence destroyed – Respondent concerned about applicant’s denial of wrongdoing – Applicant dismissed – Found conduct excessive, personally abusive and caused tension and discomfort – Found respondent had reasonable grounds to conclude conduct amounted to serious misconduct – Found applicant should have been provided with copies of statements – Found failure meant applicant had no opportunity to view conduct as seen by colleagues and reconsider response – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – 100 percent contributory conduct – Applicant denied wrongdoing and called authors of statements liars – Found applicant’s behaviour unacceptable and made more serious by refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing and hostility towards decision maker – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant argued overtime hours reduced and given to another employee – Applicant claimed reduction in overtime was response to request for overtime payment – Authority found applicant not target of bullying because of request – Found allegation overtime given to another employee related to single incident – Found offer to other employee justified – Applicant agreed to reduce hours of work to three days per week to reduce costs – Applicant’s argument reduction of hours required or would be made redundant rejected by Authority – Applicant claimed not treated similarly to colleague in allowing tea break – Found annoyance unfounded – Found respondent did not refuse permission to take break – Applicant claimed telephone message not passed on promptly – Found incident at worst involved failure in communication – Found no bullying, harassment or discrimination – No unjustified disadvantage – Sales consultant |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified dismissal) ; No remedies (100% contributory conduct) ; Application dismissed (unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s124 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 265_10.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |