| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 222/10 |
| Hearing date | 3 Dec 2010 |
| Determination date | 06 December 2010 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | F Birch ; K Thompson |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Falcon v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant dismissed following accident while driving cart on ramp at airport - Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified and sought reinstatement and compensation - On material provided Authority found applicant appeared to have weak grievance claim - Authority decided applicant should provide supporting statements for Authority to review before decided who needed to give evidence for respondent - Applicant agreed to provide statements by specified date - Applicant did not provide statements - Applicant then repeatedly failed to comply with directions and timetables set down by Authority - Respondent claimed applicant’s inordinate and inexcusable delays and defaults were abuse of process - Respondent sought to strike out proceedings - Authority found appropriate to bring investigation to conclusion by making determination - Found applicant had had more than adequate opportunity to provide Authority with material and evidence to support claim - Authority not prepared to allow any further opportunity because had no confidence would not be further non compliance with directions - Respondent investigated incident including interviewing applicant, passenger and witnesses - Passenger claimed applicant driving too fast and skidding in the wet - Witnesses supported view applicant skidding cart - Respondent complied report and gave copy to applicant - Applicant called to disciplinary meetings and given chance to provide explanations - Respondent concluded driving was reckless, applicant speeding and conduct amounted to serious misconduct - Applicant given further opportunity to say anything in mitigation - Applicant dismissed - Authority found evidence indicated respondent complied with its disciplinary processes and treated applicant in dignified manner - Found respondent’s actions those of fair and reasonable employer - Dismissal justified - Authority found applicant had obstructed rather than facilitated Authority’s investigation and not acted in good faith towards respondent - COUNTERCLAIM - Breach of contract - Respondent sought order could pursue counterclaim within two months - Found counterclaim was essentially common law claim for damages for breach of implied term of contract - Found was not matter would resolve without evidence on oath - Authority found appropriate to resolve all issues now and dismiss counterclaim - COSTS - Unsuccessful personal grievance - Half a day investigation meeting - Respondent sought $3,000 costs - Authority found that amount more appropriate for full day investigation meeting and more modest sum appropriate - Applicant to pay respondent $1,500 |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Counterclaim dismissed ; Costs in favour of respondent ($1,500) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s157(1);ERA s157(2);ERA s160(2) |
| Cases Cited | 646 Victoria (Hamilton) Ltd v Phillips unreported, Perkins, J, 23 May 2007, AC 29/07 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 222_10.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |