| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 268/10 |
| Hearing date | 12 Mar 2010 |
| Determination date | 03 June 2010 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | AM McInally, D Corbett ; SJ Davies |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Singh v Pegasus Stations Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and that respondent breached employment agreement by failing to take practicable steps to safeguard applicant against assault – Respondent argued applicant’s actions serious misconduct as applicant failed to follow respondent’s security procedures – Incident occurred where drunk customer (“C”) entered store and sought to use toilet – C came out of toilet and threw paper out of order sign at applicant’s face – Applicant claimed C “verbally abusive” and applicant “extremely concerned” for own safety – Applicant claimed C’s companions outside store could enter store and “do further harm” – Applicant locked entrance door and called Police – C sought to open door – Authority found CCTV footage did not reflect applicant’s claim that C “very abusive” – Incident escalated physically to involve applicant’s co-worker and subsequently C hit applicant – Applicant’s glasses broken during incident – Applicant returned to work but refused certain duties because claimed needed glasses – Respondent told applicant to provide invoice for existing glasses – Applicant initially failed to attend proposed disciplinary meetings – Subsequently respondent had disciplinary meetings with applicant – Applicant told dismissed for serious misconduct as deliberately failed to follow Health and Safety procedures relating to Company Security procedures – Respondent declined glasses claim as concluded applicant’s behaviour causal factor leading to broken glasses – Authority found respondent’s policy emphasised not to lock aggressive customers in shop – Found applicant aware of respondent’s security policies, procedures and guidelines, in particular procedure for aggressive customers – Found applicant failed to observe requirements which required very simple and common sense application – Found all applicant required to do was unlock entrance door and let C go, while C in good humour as shown by CCTV footage – Found from CCTV footage probable applicant provoked C, even when co-worker intervened and had matter under control – Found applicant continued to actively aggravate situation – Found following properly conducted investigation respondent fairly and reasonably entitled to conclude applicant failed to follow safety and security policies – Found respondent entitled to treat applicant’s behaviour as serious misconduct and dismissal option fairly available – Found no failure by respondent to provide applicant safe workplace – Found no evidence of bias or predetermination by respondent – Applicant’s disparity of treatment argument rejected – Dismissal justified – Service Station Worker |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Samu v Air New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 ERNZ 636 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 268_10.pdf [pdf 57 KB] |