| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 135 |
| Hearing date | 21 Feb 2012 |
| Determination date | 17 April 2012 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | M Whitehead ; E Warden, V Hodgson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Dick v Progressive Enterprises Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Applicant seen removing wrapping on packs of chicken and relabeling with later best before dates - Applicant seen unwrapping beef products, mincing product and relabeling with later best before dates - Applicant amended wastage records without discussing action with anyone - Matters brought to attention of store manager (T") - T spoke to applicant and commenced disciplinary investigation - T warned applicant viewed actions as serious misconduct and dismissal could follow - T not satisfied with applicant's answers at subsequent meeting - Applicant suspended - T informed applicant at further meeting considered allegations proved - T informed applicant respondent had 'zero tolerance' towards breaches of food safety programme - Applicant dismissed - Applicant claimed existing practice of rewrapping and relabeling meat at respondent - Applicant claimed unaware of 'zero tolerance' policy - Applicant claimed disparity of treatment with other employees in similar circumstances - Authority found respondent entitled to regard actions as serious misconduct - Found even if practice of rewrapping and relabeling existed, no evidence that it included extending best before date - Found even if practice existed in earlier part of applicant's career, respondent's recent heavy emphasis on food safety and applicant's responsibility as manager meant applicant had responsibility to stop any prior practice - Found 'zero tolerance' policy did not mean dismissal would follow any occurrence of conduct regardless of explanation - Found respondent had obtained applicant explanations and entitled to find them unacceptable - Found that either no disparity of treatment between employees or disparity explained adequately - Found respondent acted fairly and reasonably - Dismissal justified - Butchery manager" |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Buchanan v Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue [2006] ERNZ 512;Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan (No 2) [2005] ERNZ 767;Samu v Air New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 ERNZ 636 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_135.pdf [pdf 50 KB] |