| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 219 |
| Hearing date | 3 Feb 2011 |
| Determination date | 23 May 2011 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | S Austin ; D Erickson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kaipara v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant attended respondent’s health and safety training – Training included using employee padlocks to isolate jammed machines – Training reiterated was company policy under no circumstances could employee use another employee’s padlock to isolate machine – Training attendees advised disciplinary proceedings would result if isolation policy not followed and given handout – Applicant signed supervisor’s record confirming all staff supervised by applicant had demonstrated understood isolation procedures – Wood jam occurred in area applicant supervising – Applicant and other employees failed to apply own padlocks – Applicant instructed machine restarted while employee (“X”) still on machine – X attempted to leave area and jammed legs between timber – Machine stopped immediately and employee freed – Applicant partially completed incident report stating incident could have been prevented by communications and isolation – Applicant admitted at meeting had failed to comply with isolation policy – Applicant suspended after second meeting – Applicant claimed never advised meeting could lead to disciplinary investigation or could have support person – Claimed respondent did not act fairly and reasonably – Authority found respondent sought applicant’s feedback before suspension – Found suspension justified and action of fair and reasonable employer in all circumstances – No unjustified disadvantage – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct - Applicant had support person at third meeting - Applicant claimed told before and after meeting not to worry and thought assurance would not lose job – Authority found comment made to calm applicant and before decision made – Respondent advised applicant of allegations had not followed or ensured other employees followed isolation procedure – Applicant advised dismissal possible consequence – Applicant claimed dismissal predetermined, respondent did not provide applicant with all documents and manager did not hear from applicant – Authority found second meeting not disciplinary – Found respondent heard and considered applicant’s explanations and decision not predetermined – Applicant claimed not provided with video of incident - Authority found nothing in documents contradicting parties’ evidence and respondent did not rely on video – Found manager’s involvement did not affect decision – Dismissal action of fair and reasonable employer in all circumstances – Dismissal justified - Shift Supervisor |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Graham v Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [2005] ERNZ 587;Tawhiwhirangi v A-G in Respect of Chief Executive, Department of Justice [1993] ERNZ 546 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_219.pdf [pdf 30 KB] |