Sacked worker seeks reinstatement

Press, 16 February 1984, Page 11

Sacked worker seeks reinstatement

One of two Temuka factory workers dismissed last year for fighting on the job has sought reinstatement before the Arbitration Court in Christchurch. The Labourers’ Union brought a personal grievance against New Zealand Insulators, Ltd, for Shane Hogg, claiming that he had been unjustifiably dismissed.

The company sacked Mr Hogg and another employee, Mr Charlie Green, last May for fighting at work. Both were given a week’s wages in lieu of notice.

The decision was supported at the time by two union delegates, Mrs Sandra Ridout and Mr Paul Heremaia, who co-operated with management in investigating the incident. However, the statements made by Mr Green and Mr Hogg both then and at the Court have conflicted. Mr Green, while admitting that he punched Mr Hogg on the nose, said that he did so after Mr Hogg had “kneed” him.

Mr Hogg denied this. As no-one in the factory saw the incident, the company’s personnel officer, Mr Maurice Thelning, and Mr Heremaia attempted to verify Mr Green’s account by asking him to undergo a physical examination. They found a bruise on

his left thiglj and concluded that Mr Hogg had assaulted him as claimed. Mr Hogg was accordingly dismissed. He took the grievance to the union’s secretary, Mr Richard Lowe, who, after inquiring into the incident, decided that the dismissal was unjustified.

He submitted to the Court that Mr Green’s injury did not prove conclusively that Mr Hogg had kneed him. It might have been suffered in some other way. “Charlie (Mr Green) has admitted punching Shane (Mr Hogg) but Shane has never admitted hurting Charlie,” he said.

“The union believes that any dismissal must be based on fact, not assumption, and that the burden of proof rests with the employer. When guilt cannot be established there is no justification for dismissal,” Mr Lowe submitted.

He sought reinstatement for Mr Hogg but not compensation for lost wages although these were estimated at more than $4OOO. Both Mrs Ridout and Mr Heremaia spoke in support of the union’s case, saying that they had been mistaken in agreeing to the company’s decision to sack Mr Hogg.

“I worried about it later because there was a doubt,”

Mrs Ridout said. “There is no evidence that the mark on Mr Green’s leg came from a kick, and a person is not guilty until proved guilty.” Mr Thelning said for the company that Mr Hogg had been dismissed because “on the day we all agreed that we had enough proof” that he had assaulted Mr Green. The welt on Mr Green’s leg had been the “clincher,” he said, although he later admitted that it could not be proved absolutely that Mr Hogg had inflicted the injury. It was only “probable.” However, Mr C. M. Wishart, counsel for New Zealand Insulators, Ltd, defended the company’s handling of the incident and asked for costs. He said that the investigation leading to the dismissal of Mr Hogg and Mr Green had been properly conducted and thorough, “not a hit and miss affair.” He also emphasised that union representatives had participated in the inquiry and had agreed on the day to both dismissals. Decision was reserved.