| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 140 |
| Hearing date | 27 Oct 2010 |
| Determination date | 07 April 2011 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; G Malone |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Rangiawha v Affco New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant dismissed following investigation into allegations deliberately failed to carry out important testing – Testing had to be carried out according to schedule set by Food Safety Authority - As result of seasonal staffing arrangements applicant informed being transferred from one department to another – Scheduled testing date was day after applicant to be transferred – Was discussion between staff and managers about who would carry out testing – Applicant claimed agreed would complete testing early if had time to do so – Respondent claimed applicant agreed to carry out testing on specified date – Testing not carried out – Respondent’s production manager (“O”) asked to investigate matter – O concluded applicant deliberately failed to complete sampling work assigned by manager (“B”) and failed to inform B testing not done – Respondent claimed failure led to serious consequences and could have resulted in plant being shut down - Authority found were significant flaws in basis on which O reached conclusions about applicant’s state of mind and actions - Found employee’s actions or omissions to be analysed according to how seriously conduct fell short when measured against duties and obligations in employment relationship, rather than seriousness of consequences of misconduct - Found B’s allegations applicant’s actions deliberate and motivated by dissatisfaction with having to change jobs amounted to accusation of attempting industrial sabotage – Found as allegation serious high level of proof needed – Found high level of proof not reached - Found inquiry focussed almost entirely on prospect of deliberate actions by applicant and gave little attention to other explanations or whether other staff members should also bear responsibility for sampling not being done that week - Found fair and reasonable employer would not have concluded applicant’s failure to do sampling, in context of changed deadline and limited staffing on day occurred, amounted to more than negligence or oversight and would have concluded that it fell short of degree of intention needed to amount to serious misconduct – Dismissal unjustified - Remedies – No contributory conduct - Found reimbursement of lost wages to be limited to period until end of season due to applicant’s limited attempts to mitigate losses but accepting effect of dismissal on applicant’s confidence to seek new work – Authority accepted applicant’s evidence felt ashamed and embarrassed by dismissal – Found applicant had to move family from rented accommodation to sister’s garage until granted benefit - $6,000 compensation appropriate - Micro-coordinator |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($4183) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s128 |
| Cases Cited | Angel & Anor v Fonterra Co-operative Group [2006] ERNZ 1080;Honda NZ Ltd v NZ Shipwrights Union [1990] 3 NZILR 23; (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 855;Makatoa v Restaurant Brands (New Zealand) Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 311 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_140.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |