| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 4 |
| Hearing date | 17 Dec 2010 |
| Determination date | 10 January 2011 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | G Burch (in person) ; L Rush, D Rush |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Burch v Rush Security Services Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed not provided with rest and meal breaks – Applicant claimed respondent did not provide relief operator and forced to leave control room unattended – Respondent claimed applicant had access to facilities to take requisite breaks and did so – Authority preferred respondent’s evidence informed applicant at pre-employment interview applicant not able to leave premises during shift and unable to smoke for minimum of 12 hours – Cleaner reported applicant left premises unattended – Respondent informed applicant conduct constituted serious offence – Applicant caught outside smoking while premises unattended – Video footage confirmed applicant left premises unattended on another occasion – Applicant attended disciplinary meeting – Found applicant signed House Rules which provided leaving control room unattended constituted serious misconduct – Applicant asserted would repeat behaviour – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed respondent failed to follow disciplinary procedure as did not provide warnings as per employment agreement – Found not for applicant to unilaterally determine able to go outside and smoke – Found applicant accepted position with knowledge unable to leave premises during shift – Dismissal justified – Senior Alarm and Video Monitoring Operator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s69ZD;ERA s69ZE |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_4.pdf [pdf 20 KB] |