| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Wellington 197 |
| Hearing date | 30 Aug 2011 - 31 Aug 2011 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 30 November 2011 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | G Lloyd ; T Cleary |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Clarke v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by respondent – Respondent employee informed respondent ramp services manager (“B”) of altercation between applicant and respondent on job trainer (“T”) and ramp training coordinator (“R”) – T and R reported applicant had become hostile and made reference to bringing gun to work – B suspended applicant and notified police – Police formally warned applicant for threatening comments – Respondent heard evidence from number of witnesses who saw applicant become angry and many heard applicant make gun comments – Applicant accepted had become frustrated and made gun comments – Applicant stated first comment was that shooting spree would sort it all out and second comment was that may as well get gun and blow own head off – Applicant claimed comments made in jest – Respondent concluded applicant’s comments not jokes as applicant angry and upset – Respondent took account of fact comments out of character and nobody believed applicant would carry comments out – Applicant dismissed – Authority found employment agreement did not require consultation prior to suspension – Found given seriousness of allegations suspension appropriate as staff and public safety had to be given priority – Found respondent adopted fair process – Found respondent’s failure to investigate alleged culture of jokes with violent overtones not unfair because sufficiently compelling evidence that applicant was not joking – Found respondent not required to investigate applicant’s mental state or likelihood of carrying out comments – Found no predetermination or closed mind adopted by respondent – Found applicant aware of strict prohibition on making jokes about security – Found while comments were not made with intention of carrying them out neither comment was a joke – Found if applicant had only made first comment then finding of serious misconduct would not have been reasonable but second comment justified finding – Found respondent could not be sure that in similar circumstances applicant’s anger and frustration would not boil over again – Found applicant’s conduct particularly serious given security conscious environment of aviation industry – Applicant had no intention of bringing gun to work – No disadvantage – Dismissal justified – Loader |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Arthur D Riley & Co Ltd v Wood [2008] ERNZ 462 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Wellington_197.pdf [pdf 59 KB] |