| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Wellington 196 |
| Hearing date | 11 Nov 2011 - 14 Nov 2011 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 29 November 2011 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | P Cranney ; M Quigg |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Hagger v Centreport Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant tested positive for marijuana after submitted to urine test – Respondent’s work policies strictly prohibited employees being impaired by or under the influence of drugs – Applicant claimed tested positive for drugs as result of unknowingly consuming marijuana-laced cake – Applicant claimed unaware of effects of cake as intoxicated at time – Respondent Operations Manager (“H”) refused to state whether believed applicant’s explanation for testing positive for marijuana during disciplinary meeting – Respondent did not regard applicant’s explanation reasonable or probable – Respondent concluded serious misconduct had been proven – Applicant dismissed – Authority found circumstances may leave it open for employer to reject explanation given by employee without requirement for employer to identify who or what it believes – Found new test under s103A Employment Relations Act 2000 less constraining and allowed employees greater leeway to lawfully dismiss or take other action against employees – Found fair and reasonable employer could at first sight regard result of drug test as providing proof that serious misconduct occurred – Found applicant provided with unrestricted opportunity to answer allegation of serious misconduct – Found respondent had reasons for rejecting applicant’s explanation – Found respondent needed to have confidence in employees to observe all safety requirements including prohibition on drugs – Found respondent considered relevant matters such as applicant’s long service, positive drug test, breach of safety requirements and previous warnings issued – Dismissal justified – Foreman |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards and Hostesses of New Zealand IUOW v Air New Zealand Ltd (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 985;Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 125;McKean v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 128;W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448;Whanganui College Board of Trustees v Lewis [2000] 1 ERNZ 397 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Wellington_196.pdf [pdf 51 KB] |