| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 196 |
| Hearing date | 13 Dec 2011 |
| Determination date | 11 June 2012 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | J Cox ; T Skinner |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Brooksmith v Hibiscus Coast Family Services Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found applicant not given opportunity to make submission on whether applicant’s conduct acceptable or on whether applicant should be dismissed – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – One third contributory conduct - $4,000 compensation appropriate – ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY – Applicant sought arrears of wages and holiday pay – Found applicant overpaid wages and holiday pay at other times – No arrears of wages and holiday pay |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as financial administrator. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant sought arrears of wages and holiday pay. Respondent became aware of apparent overpayment of entitlements to employees. Respondent claimed applicant not forthcoming about payments received by applicant. Applicant suspended. Applicant asked to leave meeting while members of respondent’s management committee briefed. Applicant asked if any comments but applicant refused to make statement as only given oral summary of briefing to management committee. Respondent claimed applicant made overpayment of wages and holiday pay to applicant. Applicant claimed payments authorised by previous manager. Applicant attended disciplinary meeting and summary of applicant’s response to allegations compiled. Applicant not permitted to attend subsequent management committee meeting. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed not paid in lieu of notice and entitled to holiday pay.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent suspended applicant without consultation. Applicant at disadvantage in responding to briefing to management committee because applicant not permitted to hear briefing. Respondent gave applicant fair opportunity to comment on allegation applicant not forthcoming in disclosing information and to respond to respondent’s report at disciplinary meeting. Respondent entitled to expect applicant to be more forthcoming in disclosing applicant had benefited from payments. Applicant entitled to attend management committee meeting to make submission on whether applicant’s conduct satisfactory and on whether applicant should be dismissed. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: One third contributory conduct. $4,000 compensation appropriate.;ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY: Applicant overpaid wages and holiday pay at other times. No arrears of wages and holiday pay. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified dismissal); Contributory conduct (one third); Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000); Application dismissed (arrears of wages and holiday pay); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s124;ERA s174 |
| Cases Cited | Ashton v Shoreline Hotel [1994] 1 ERNZ 421;Graham v Airways Corp of New Zealand Ltd [2005] ERNZ 587;Irvines Freightlines Ltd v Cross [1993] 1 ERNZ 424;John v Rees [1970] 1 Ch 345;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808;Quinn v Bank of New Zealand [1991] 1 ERNZ 1060 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_196.pdf [pdf 75 KB] |