| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 534 |
| Hearing date | 4 Aug 2011 |
| Determination date | 16 December 2011 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | A Singh ; M Hammond |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Maru v McKay Electrical & Instrumentation (Whangarei) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent team leader (“H”) concerned applicant’s timesheets did not reflect time applicant worked – Respondent human resources manager (“G”) compared applicant’s timesheets with GPS records for applicant’s vehicle and found discrepancies – G claimed GPS records showed applicant used company vehicle for personal use without permission – Applicant attended disciplinary meeting with respondent manager, H and G – Applicant claimed discrepancies between timesheets and GPS records due to time taken to synchronise laptop each morning, assessment of weather conditions, doing vehicle maintenance, catching up on paperwork and dropping wife off at home – Respondent considered applicant’s responses implausible – Respondent found more likely than not applicant falsified timesheets – Respondent concluded dismissal appropriate given falsification of timesheets expressly prohibited in company rules and went to core of relationship of trust and confidence – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed sample taken of timesheets not accurate – Authority found nothing unfair or unreasonable about period of time respondent investigated relating to applicant’s timesheets and GPS records – Found respondent’s investigation disclosed conduct capable of being regarded as serious misconduct – Found fair and reasonable employer would have concluded applicant’s conduct deeply impaired or destroyed employment relationship – Found conclusion particularly so given applicant in unsupervised role – Dismissal justified – COUNTER CLAIM – RECOVERY OF MONIES – Respondent claimed applicant paid for hours not actually worked – Found respondent entitled to $788 – Line Mechanic |
| Result | Application granted (counterclaim)(recovery of monies) ; Recovery of monies ($788.40) ; Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards and Hostesses of New Zealand IUOW v Air New Zealand Ltd (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 985;Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415;Air New Zealand v V [2009] ERNZ 185;BP Oil New Zealand Ltd v Northern Distribution Union [1992] 3 ERNZ 483;Hardie v Round (2008) 8 NZELC 99,317;Robinson v Rentokil Initial Ltd unreported, D King, 20 April 2010, AA179/10 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_534.pdf [pdf 59 KB] |