| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 67 |
| Hearing date | 10 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 18 May 2011 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | R Hancock ; L Ryder |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Fisher v Express Couriers Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Sexual Harassment - Respondent had arrangement with organisation (“M”) would provide M’s trainees with work experience – Trainee (“C”) worked with applicant – C did not appear at work next day – M advised respondent received complaint from C alleging sexual harassment – Respondent arranged meeting with C and M representatives – Respondent claimed C extremely upset and agitated at meeting – C alleged applicant had made inappropriate comments and touched C inappropriately – Respondent’s policy considered sexual harassment form of discrimination and required managers to ensure fair and thorough investigation occurred – Investigation commenced – Applicant given letter advising of C’s complaint and asking applicant attend meeting – Letter noted respondent’s policy, possibility of dismissal and applicant had already received final written warning for inappropriate comments towards employee three years earlier – Manager approached seven employees for witness accounts – Five denied saw anything inappropriate, one said applicant’s discussion did not cross line but over the top – C claimed moved car during break to avoid applicant approaching her after work – Employee (“X”) confirmed car moved by C but claimed result of comments X made about general safety of female staff – Respondent reviewed closed circuit footage of alleged incident with employee (“K”) – K continued review without manager and supplied respondent with images K thought would assist inquiry – Images and C’s complaint given to applicant before meeting – Further employees interviewed but none recalled anything unusual – Authority noted not unusual staff did not notice anything as workplace noisy and most staff wearing ear protection - Applicant withdrew earlier denial of allegations at meeting, admitted made comments to C but denied touched C inappropriately – Respondent made further inquiries at union’s request – During second meeting manager made inappropriate comment but human resources representative intervened immediately - Applicant given opportunity to provide reasons why should not be dismissed - Applicant informed at fourth meeting respondent believed did touch C inappropriately and no longer had trust and confidence in applicant – Applicant claimed investigation incomplete, footage incomplete and outcome predetermined – Authority noted applicant acknowledged comments inappropriate - Authority found footage supported respondent’s conclusion applicant touched C inappropriately – Authority noted applicant failed to offer explanations for behaviour before investigation meeting – Noted manager’s inappropriate comment did not affect respondent’s investigation - Found respondent conducted detailed investigation concluded at applicant’s request – Found outcome not predetermined and footage not inappropriately edited – Found dismissal action of fair and reasonable employer in all circumstances - Dismissal justified – Parcels Officer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v V [2009] ERNZ 185 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_67.pdf [pdf 29 KB] |