He sent a text message to his supervisor after he was due to start work stating: "Apologies ray 2 crook to mke it in. Turei".
This was despite workers being warned at a staff meeting on November 2, that if they had not requested annual leave over the Christmas/New Year period but failed to show up for work a disciplinary procedure would be followed.
The Christmas/New Year period was the company's peak operational time and employees were told of the appropriate procedure to let management know if they were unable to attend work.
On December 28 Mr Peters went to work at usual at 5am, but at 7am he was called into a manager's office and was asked to explain his absence the day before.
Mr Peters explained he has been too drunk to go to work and the manager said he would further discuss the matter later.
He then attended a disciplinary meeting with the general manager where, during an adjournment, he was assured by his supervisor that he would only receive a warning. When the meeting resumed he was fired for serious misconduct.
The company's general manager stated Mr Peters' only explanation was that he had become too carried away by the festive season and therefore it had been a personal choice to continue drinking knowing he had work the next day.
"The incident in itself was sufficient to justify 'unauthorised absenteeism from work' - however this was not the first occasion in that Mr Peters had been too intoxicated to attend work, this being at the commencement of his shift on a previous Christmas period," the general manager said.
Mr Peters told the Authority there had been some "personal issues" between him and his partner which resulted in him feeling stressed, he said there had also been unexpected family visitors during the day which had added to his stress. He started drinking about midday on Boxing Day and continued until about 3am.
Authority member Eleanor Robinson said although Mr Peters' unauthorised absence from work was deemed serious misconduct, Bay Packers went about the incident the wrong way.
"I have found that Mr Peters was unjustifiably dismissed by Bay Packers. He was unable to obtain alternative employment for a period of some 15 weeks."
Bay Packers was ordered to reimburse Mr Peters the $8528 he would have earned while he was out of work for three months.
Ms Robinson said as Mr Peters contributed 100 per cent to his actions, he was awarded no other compensation.