| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 76 |
| Hearing date | 27 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 31 May 2011 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | R Hancock ; N Bolstad |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Dixon v Shamrock Pastures Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant dismissed after incorrectly marked cow during milking – Applicant claimed respondent failed to follow disciplinary process and did not disclose reasons for dismissal – Respondent claimed applicant’s negligent actions created substantial risk of fines against respondent – Performance review conducted before incident where parties agreed applicant not performing work to standard - Applicant thought cow needed observation and marked with red spray – Common farm practice penicillin cows given red marking on udder and not milked with herd – Cow noticed by applicant should have been marked with different colour above udder – Employee (“R”) did not notice red marking and returned cow to paddock with herd – Applicant and R again failed to notice cow with marking at milking next day - Respondent noticed cow with marking – Records stated cow “penicillin cow” but later discovered two cows had same number – Respondent concerned risk farm supplied contaminated milk to Fonterra – Applicant confirmed cow with marking not same as cow with same number in penicillin herd – Applicant claimed used red spray as no other colours available – Authority found applicant marked cow in wrong place – Found applicant only told of meeting and right to representation same day meeting held – Parties agreed respondent offered to defer meeting if applicant wanted support person but applicant declined – Applicant accepted knew correct marking procedure – Respondent noted serious financial risk to company at meeting and dismissed applicant – Respondent confirmed dismissal in writing – Respondent’s directors and second in charge discussed applicant’s actions before meeting, agreed should face serious disciplinary action as knowingly marked cow and returned to paddock – Authority found dismissal predetermined – Respondent claimed fully investigated matters before meeting – Authority noted applicant not given opportunity to tell respondent had asked R to check office for spray in other colours and had requested more paint two days earlier – Noted cow never penicillin cow" so never financial risk to respondent – Employment agreement identified incorrect markings as ordinary misconduct warranting warnings before dismissal – Applicant claimed dismissed as employment agreement ending soon – Authority found respondent did not dismiss applicant to avoid redundancy – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – 20 percent contributory conduct – Reimbursement of $5,440 lost wages appropriate - $4,000 compensation appropriate – Senior Farm Assistant" |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($6,800 reduced to $5,440) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000 reduced to $4,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s103A;ERA s123(1)(b);ERA s128(2) |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_76.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |