| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 358/10 |
| Hearing date | 15 Apr 2010 |
| Determination date | 13 August 2010 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; T Cleary |
| Location | Dargaville |
| Parties | McPherson v Silver Fern Farms Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant previously received two warnings for absenteeism - Applicant issued with final warning for breach of hygiene rules - Applicant again breached hygiene rules on several occasions - Applicant called to disciplinary meeting - Applicant informed as on final warning dismissal could result - Applicant represented by Union at meeting - Respondent determined applicant breached hygiene rules and applicant summarily dismissed - Applicant claimed not aware of new rules alleged to have breached - Claimed not aware on final written warning and never received a copy of it - Claimed unfair given final warning for breach of hygiene rules when previous two warnings were for unrelated offence of absenteeism - Claimed further breaches of hygiene rules should have resulted in further warning and not dismissal - Claimed had disputed previous warnings through Union and considered them unfair - Respondent produced applicant’s training record indicating applicant received, and acknowledged understanding, instruction regarding hygiene rules which subsequently breached - Respondent claimed usual practice to give Union official copy of warning to give to employee - Union official stated applicant would have known was on final warning - Respondent claimed while Union indicated did not agree with first two warnings no personal grievance raised - Respondent claimed collective employment agreement (“CEA”) did not require various levels of warning to be about same offence - Authority satisfied applicant trained in and understood hygiene rules which breached - Authority satisfied applicant aware on final written warning and any further breach could result in dismissal - Found while may be merit in argument final warning should not have been issued had been no challenge by Union as to respondent’s interpretation of relevant clauses in CEA - Found irrespective whether final warning should have been issued, warning was in existence and unchallenged when applicant breached hygiene rules again - Found breach of rules could result in respondent losing export license with devastating consequences - Found respondent’s actions those of fair and reasonable employer - Dismissal justified - Meat Processing Operator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 358_10.pdf [pdf 24 KB] |