| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 70 |
| Hearing date | 20 Jan 2011 |
| Determination date | 22 February 2011 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; G Malone |
| Location | Whangarei |
| Parties | Richards v Affco Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Respondent operated meat export business - All plants required to meet specific hygiene standards - Failure to meet and maintain required standards had potential to result in loss of export licence and consequent loss of employment for all employees - Applicant on final written warning for failure to follow safe working practices and procedures – Applicant’s boots deemed to be non-compliant at boot check held about six months later – Applicant requested to attend disciplinary meeting – Applicant suspended pending outcome of meeting which was then adjourned – Meeting reconvened and applicant dismissed - Authority found applicant had clear understanding of hygiene requirements, initially from induction process and subsequently by requirements being constantly reinforced by respondent’s management at regular meetings and gear checks – Found collective employment agreement stated deliberate refusal to comply with hygiene standards was offence warranting summary dismissal - Found applicant specifically reminded at time received final warning that failure to have clean boots could result in dismissal – Found was substantive justification for applicant’s dismissal - Found applicant fully informed of consequences of noncompliance with hygiene standards, and that dismissal possible outcome of failing to maintain standards - Found applicant represented at meeting – Found applicant given opportunity to explain - Found no evidence of bias or pre-determination - Applicant claimed disparity of treatment – Claimed another employee (“X”) on final written warning received further final warning after failing boot check rather than being dismissed - Respondent claimed as consequence of procedural error X held not to be on final warning when boots found to be noncompliant – Claimed had X been on valid final warning would have been dismissed - No disparity of treatment - Found applicant had scant regard, bordering on reckless disregard, for hygiene standards – Found respondent’s actions those of fair and reasonable employer - Dismissal justified – Meat worker |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan and Anor [2005] ERNZ 767;Cooke v Tranz Rail Ltd (formerly NZ Rail Ltd) [1996] 1 ERNZ 610;NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35 ; (1990) 3 NZELC 97,567 ; (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 582;Samu v Air New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 ERNZ 636 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_70.pdf [pdf 45 KB] |