Court decides steward’s dismissal justified

Press, 5 September 1983, Page 6

Court decides steward’s dismissal justified

PA Auckland The Arbitration Court has decided that Air New Zealand was justified in dismissing a flight steward who was convicted of smuggling. The steward, Reece Martin, brought a video-re-corder into New Zealand on behalf of another flight steward, Owen Dillimore. A District Court hearing in Auckland in March, 1981, was told that the two men met in Hong Kong. Mr Dillimore was flying on to London, and asked Mr Martin to take the recorder to Auckland and place it in bond until he returned. Mr Martin was not familiar with the bonding procedure. He passed through Auckland Customs in the normal way without trying to conceal the recorder, which was in a large case. Only outside the airport terminal building did he realise he had not declared the recorder. He wds fatigued after an 11-hour working flight, and felt unable to handle the “rig-

marole” of going back and putting the recorder into bond.

Later, he tried to telephone Mr Dillimore in England, but was unable to contact him. Some three of four weeks later he met Mr Dillimore at the airport, and was told that the Customs Department was looking into the importation. Mr Martin was fined $7OO by the District Court. A later appeal to the High Court was dismissed. Mr Martin was dismissed from the airline for the offence last January. The company said it was acting within the provisions of the industrial award, its inflight services and personnel manuals, and written notification given to crew members in 1973. „ t The Arbitration Court said it could not accept forgetfulness or fatigue as an explanation for Mr Martin’s not declaring the re-, corder.

The Court referred to the assertion that the airline

had not taken into account Mr Martin’s past exemplary record.

“Whether that be so, the proposition is a two-edged sword or, in other words, a man of his experience should have known better.”

The secretary of the Flight Stewards and Hostesses’ Union, Mr Terry Crossley, said the union was considering taking Mr Martin’s case again to the Court of Appeal over a point of law.

“We consider Mr Martin was very much a victim of circumstances, and has already been punished enough,” Mr Crossley said.