| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 462/10 |
| Hearing date | 3 Jun 2010 |
| Determination date | 28 October 2010 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | M Whitehead ; A Twaddle |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Henry v Go Bus Transport Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Sexual harassment – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed for sexual harassment – Reinstatement sought – Witnesses (“Mr S”) and (“Mr M”) who were co-workers of applicant failed to attend investigation meeting – Respondent’s Hamilton based drivers provided accommodation in form of four bedroom house – Mr S and Mr M also resided at house – Previously applicant given final written warning for swearing at school child on bus run – Prior to complaints leading to dismissal, respondent investigated complaints applicant allegedly showed pornographic material to students – Applicant given reprimand as result of investigation into allegations – Subsequently applicant made allegations about Mr S and Mr M which led to respondent investigating allegations and subjecting Mr S and Mr M to disciplinary process – Subsequently Mr S alleged was sexually harassed by applicant – Mr M confirmed allegations – Applicant denied allegations arguing were in retaliation for allegations against Mr S and Mr M – Mr S alleged applicant flirted with him and made improper suggestions while dressed only in underwear – Authority satisfied respondent’s process of investigating allegations full and fair – Found respondent concluded allegations made by Mr S more likely than not true – Found given applicant’s previous work history, together with finding applicant acted in manner described in sexual harassment policy, decision made to dismiss applicant for serious misconduct – Credibility finding in favour of respondent – Found respondent’s actions those of fair and reasonable employer – Found allegations of sexual harassment conduct similar in nature to previous unprofessional behaviour applicant had been warned and reprimanded about – Found those matters could not be ignored by respondent in context of disciplinary process – Dismissal justified – Bus driver |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415;Toll New Zealand Consolidated Ltd v Rowe unreported, Shaw J, 19 Dec 2007, AC 39A/07;X v Auckland District Health Board [2007] 1 ERNZ 66 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 462_10.pdf [pdf 20 KB] |