| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 211 |
| Hearing date | 9 Feb 2011 |
| Determination date | 18 May 2011 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | D Feist ; L Rush |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Shayler v Rush Security Services Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Employment of just over two months – Respondent previously highlighted concerns applicant was sleeping on job - Shortly after commencing shift applicant informed respondent’s General Manager (“R”) had received call from partner advising him her aunt had died, she was very distressed and she required him to come home immediately and drive her to town where aunt was – In circumstances R granted applicant’s request to leave work immediately - Four days later R received email from control room supervisors urging R to listen to recording of conversation between applicant and partner day applicant requested leave – After listening to recording applicant formed view appeared applicant had “grossly misrepresented” situation – Recording made no mention of sudden death and applicant’s partner did not sound distressed - Applicant suspended on pay pending disciplinary investigation – Applicant invited to disciplinary meeting, encouraged to bring support person and informed summary dismissal was possibility – Disciplinary meeting held where applicant provided response to allegations – Applicant summarily dismissed following day – Applicant dismissed for breach of respondent’s house rules about abuse of leave and for misleading R - Authority found was arguable whether applicant’s actions could be classified as abuse of leave provisions – However, Authority found applicant did deliberately mislead R – Found was no funeral, rather was unveiling ceremony for aunt who had died about a year ago – Found R entitled to treat applicant’s behaviour as serious misconduct – Found deliberate actions of applicant constituted conduct that was destructive of basic trust and confidence essential to employment relationship – Found was particularly so given applicant employed in industry where trust and confidence in employee was key component of employment relationship – Found applicant’s early departure left his colleagues stretched to cover surveillance duties that were essential to respondent’s effective operation and its credibility with outside agencies, such as police - Applicant’s claim dismissal predetermined rejected – Authority found nothing to suggest was any deficiency in process and procedure leading to dismissal – Found respondent’s actions those of fair and reasonable employer - Dismissal justified - Control Room Operator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | BP Oil NZ Ltd v Northern Distribution Union [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_211.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |