The Employment Relations Authority has upheld a personal grievance claim for unjustified dismissal after an employee was dismissed for safety issues.

The ERA held that the process followed was unfair because the manager who carried out the investigation and dismissal was himself a witness to events, had been guilty of the same safety breaches he was alleging (without being disciplined), had failed to put allegations to the employee fully, and had a preconceived notion that dismissal would be the outcome.

Because the manager had witnessed the events he was investigating, and had failed to carry out the same safety breach reporting steps, he was held not to be able to bring an unbiased mind to the investigation.

The manager believed that the employee had completed a back-dated incident report but failed to put this allegation to the employee so he could respond to it.  The manager also took into account other performance concerns which were not put to the employee as part of a performance improvement process.

The manager had also displayed predetermination, of dismissal as the outcome, by stating that serious breaches of safety would result in dismissal.  He therefore had a closed mind about the penalty.

The ERA also held that there was a disparity of treatment between the dismissed employee and others involved that was unjustified.

The ERA awarded six months lost wages, less 20% for the employee’s contribution to the events, plus $5,600 compensation.