| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 5 |
| Hearing date | 26 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 13 January 2011 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | J Sanders ; D Russ |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Oso v Mastagard Coleridge Recycling Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Motor of Bobcat machine suffered complete seizure caused by insufficient oil in engine – Respondent claimed applicant aware of primacy of maintaining appropriate oil levels in machine as had long and satisfactory career as driver of machines prior to becoming foreman – Authority found applicant not contractually bound to physically and personally check oil levels of machines – Found no contractual obligation to physically perform checks but must ascertain checks carried out by subordinate – Found no process for reviewing subordinate’s performance – Applicant claimed not physically present in workplace when machine failed – Found applicant failed to notice maintenance forms not filled out for one month – Found no instruction given in relation to subordinate staff to undertake checks – Found trust and confidence not discussed at disciplinary meeting – Found decision-maker never heard applicant’s explanation – Found respondent did not act as fair and reasonable employer – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – 100 percent contributory conduct – Found applicant absolutely failed in duty to ensure proper checks carried out by subordinates – No remedies payable – Foreman |
| Result | Application granted ; Contributory conduct (100%) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Timu v Waitemata District Health Board [2007] ERNZ 419 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_5.pdf [pdf 30 KB] |