| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 381/10 |
| Hearing date | 2 Aug 2010 |
| Determination date | 24 August 2010 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | M Meyrick ; A Caisley |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Meyrick v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed final written warning unjustified – Respondent argued grievance not raised within time - Argued warning justified for repeated failure to follow lawful and reasonable instructions constituting serious misconduct – Respondent received numerous reports applicant not following correct ticketing procedures – Respondent initiated first stage of disciplinary process pursuant to collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Subsequent report alleged applicant committed similar misconducts – Applicant issued with form to provide explanation for misconduct allegations – Disciplinary meeting concluded final written warning appropriate given conduct constituted serious misconduct and applicant repeatedly failed to follow reasonable instructions – Authority found grievance not raised within time and no leave sought – Found even if grievance raised within time would not find warning unjustified – Found warning issued within designated “serious misconduct” pursuant to CEA – Found warning issued in background of repeated misconducts – Found warning procedurally justified – No unjustified disadvantage - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant dismissed following incident where repeated breaches of lawful and reasonable instructions committed – Disciplinary meeting held – Applicant explained bus exceptionally busy – Respondent adjourned meeting to conduct further investigation into claim – Respondent concluded applicant drove smaller bus at time of incident and not exceptionally busy - Explanation not accepted – Applicant given opportunity to respond to preliminary facts - Adjournment for respondent to discuss allegation – Respondent concluded dismissal for serious misconduct warranted – Authority found dismissal procedurally justified – Found applicant given thorough training to cover relevant rules and procedures – Found dismissal decision took into account final warning and repeated misconduct – Found dismissal for serious misconduct causing loss of trust and confidence justified – Bus Driver |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s114(1) |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v V [2009] ERNZ 185;NZ Food Processing IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;Secretary for Justice v Dodd [2010] NZEMPC 84 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 381_10.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |