Because of this, Mr T participated in a formal disciplinary meeting and was then issued a formal warning in respect of his lateness and failures to report his lateness or absences in a timely manner.
Mr T continued to be late to work and failed to report his lateness, so another disciplinary meeting was convened. A final written warning was issued. He was told that any further failure without good cause to report his lateness or absences in a timely manner within the following 12 months may place his continued employment in jeopardy.
Subsequent to the meeting, Mr T was late for work again. He told his employer that his son had been hospitalised and he had left the hospital to drive to work but was delayed by road works. He said he had unsuccessfully attempted to call his employer from his cell phone.
His explanation was rejected by his employer because they gained information from the Wellington City Council which showed that there were no road works in the area claimed by Mr T. He had also left out the area prefix when he had tried to call the company and in fact he should have known the number very well. The employer held another disciplinary meeting which concluded in the company’s decision to terminate Mr T’s employment. The meeting was held in a bus because the normal office was unavailable due to staff training.
The ERA held with reluctance that Mr T was unjustifiably dismissed. It was almost certain that had the meeting been conducted in the privacy of an office, the employer would have reached the same, justifiable, decision it came to following the meeting in the bus. The employer’s downfall was due to the Collective Employment Agreement which included the provision that disciplinary interviews and warning procedures shall be invalid unless conducted within the privacy of a closed office.
The primary remedy for unjustified dismissal is reinstatement and this is what Mr T sought. The ERA accepted what the employer said – that it was not practicable to reinstate Mr T due to his poor work attendance and failure to meet the requirement of strict time-keeping. The ERA said that his “abysmal” time-keeping history and his dishonest conduct in attempting to explain his lateness to work on that fateful morning meant that it could not justify reinstatement.
Mr T had also raised a claim for financial compensation for hurt and humiliation. However, this was not accepted by the ERA. Mr T was the author of his own demise and entirely responsible for any bad news of his dismissal that he had to deliver to his family. He sought lost wages from the date of dismissal. However, he had made no effort to mitigate his losses (in other words look for other work) and this claim also failed.
The final result was that it was held that Mr T was unjustifiably dismissed but he was not entitled to reinstatement, compensation or lost earnings.
