| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 92 |
| Hearing date | 6 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 23 June 2011 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | S McKenzie ; G Malone |
| Location | Invercargill |
| Parties | Stringer v South Pacific Meats Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Misconduct - Applicant sought to widen scope of proceedings shortly before investigation meeting – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent – Authority found unjustified disadvantage grievance raised out of time – Applicant issued with final warning following physical altercation with supervisor (“W”) – Second incident occurred when W intervened when saw applicant using drop saw in unsafe manner – W claimed applicant’s attitude was belligerent and angry towards W – Applicant claimed asked to write note of incident – Applicant informed incident would be investigated and invited to attend disciplinary meeting – Applicant claimed thought meeting was about applicant’s complaint in note – Authority rejected applicant’s claim and found purpose of meeting explicit – Respondent later received letter setting out complaints about W’s conduct towards applicant including intimidation, use of abusive language and confrontational behaviour – Applicant attended meeting to discuss letter and applicant’s intimidating behaviour referred to as well as previous final warning – Applicant dismissed – Found applicant not given access to relevant information until requested by solicitor – Authority rejected submission some unfairness arising from applicant not having specific allegations in writing prior to first meeting – Found W’s written account of incident read out at meeting but copy should have been given to applicant – Found allegations put to applicant in fair manner for comment before decision made – Applicant claimed decision to dismiss predetermined – Found notice given of meeting and applicant given opportunity to explain conduct in several meetings before decision to dismiss made – Found decision to dismiss not predetermined – Applicant claimed respondent failed to take into account all relevant information before deciding to dismiss applicant – Applicant claimed respondent did not take account of allegations made against W – Found evidence indicated W acted properly – Found respondent rejected applicant’s request about changing supervisor for proper business reasons – Found respondent acted fairly and reasonably in setting applicant’s hours for production requirements – Found fair and reasonable employer would have come to view applicant’s attitude to working under W remained same despite final warning – Found no evidence W turned blind eye to other safety concerns and picked on applicant – Found respondent took all reasonable steps to address problem in relationship between applicant and W including initially issuing both parties with warnings – Dismissal justified – Fitter |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Gyenge v Clifford Lamar Limited [2011] NZEMPC 1;NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever New Zealand Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_92.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |