| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 142 |
| Hearing date | 2 Jul 2012 |
| Determination date | 11 July 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | L Acland; N Ironside |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Beal v Multi Showcase Cinemas of NZ Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by warning, demotion and pay reduction - Authority found applicant's demotion and pay reduction justified - No unjustified disadvantage - Found applicant not dismissed as still employed by respondent although in lesser role with lower pay - No dismissal - Duty Manager |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as duty manager. Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's actions and unjustifiably dismissed. Applicant was working with attendant (V)" when package containing promotional material arrived. Applicant and V opened package and noticed anomaly with scratch cards. V discovered winning cards were easily identifiable. Applicant mentioned discrepancy to another staff member but failed to notify promotions manager or any other management. Applicant also failed to notify management when heard rumours of inappropriate use of promotional cards. Upon investigating matter management considered disciplinary action against number of staff including applicant. Applicant demoted to attendant’s role with pay reduction, respondent concluded applicant had not complied with duties and responsibilities as duty manager and no longer trusted applicant in role. Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged. Applicant later learned former position was disestablished and claimed should have been consulted about restructure as sought reinstatement.;AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant still employed, albeit in position of lesser responsibility and lower pay but applicant had not been dismissed. No Dismissal. UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Fair and reasonable employer could have concluded no longer had trust in applicant in duty manager role. Respondent's investigation procedurally fair. No disparity of treatment. Clear that restructure not aimed at depriving applicant of reinstatement, instead culmination of 10 month review. No unjustified disadvantage." |
| Result | Application dismissed ; costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A(3) |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415;New Zealand Labourers etc IUOW v Shell BP and Todd Oil Services Ltd [1988] NZILR 471;W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448; [2001] 3 NZLR 29 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_142.pdf [pdf 178 KB] |