| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Wellington 157 |
| Hearing date | 14 Jun 2011 |
| Determination date | 13 October 2011 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | N Flint ; D Burton |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Green v Wellington Zoo Trust |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant left peahen in enclosure with Bruce the brolga during feeding time and peahen was attacked and had to be euthanized – Applicant told supervisor saw peahen follow brolga into enclosure but did not remove peahen as believed peahen would fly out of enclosure if necessary – Applicant noticed peahen was looking “bit sluggish” before incident – Applicant reiterated what had told supervisor at preliminary interview – Respondent Chief Executive (“F”) suspended applicant pending formal disciplinary meeting – Applicant stated at disciplinary meeting that caught glimpse of something which could have been harmed by brolga but did not consciously realise peahen was in enclosure – Student who was with applicant at time of incident claimed applicant said usual for peahen and brolga to be locked in together and peahen would fly out if necessary – F decided applicant saw peahen locked in enclosure with brolga and had been grossly negligent in not removing peahen – F decided applicant’s duty to peahen was higher given change in behaviour – F decided even if applicant had only saw glimpse of something applicant should have investigated further to ensure animal safety – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed respondent’s procedure flawed as not given notice that matter was serious and could result in dismissal prior to investigation and thus had no opportunity to be represented – Authority found reasonable for respondent to conclude applicant admitted to seeing peahen in enclosure with brolga – Found applicant’s wrongful assumption that peahen would fly out of enclosure was fundamental failure of applicant’s obligations – Found applicant’s admission that saw glimpse of something but did not investigate further was serious error of judgment – Found applicant’s conduct grossly negligent and constituted serious misconduct – Found respondent’s reliance on applicant’s statement to supervisor and statements at first formal interview reasonable as occurred during preliminary investigation rather than disciplinary investigation – Found applicant not provided with all information as promptly as possible but applicant not prejudiced – Dismissal justified – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent because suspension occurred without consultation or just cause – Found respondent failed to consult with applicant before issued suspension – Found no good cause for suspension given that applicant had been working for five weeks since incident without problem – Found applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Applicant claimed humiliated and in shock due to suspension – $1,000 compensation appropriate – Zoo Keeper |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,000) ; Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan (No 2) [2005] ERNZ 767 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Wellington_157.pdf [pdf 61 KB] |