| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 182 |
| Hearing date | 8 Aug 2012 - 9 Aug 2012 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 27 August 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | L Anderson ; D Hudosn, L Brook |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Fifita (aka Eddie Bloomfield) v Dunedin Casinos Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found respondent’s decision to dismiss applicant underpinned by respondent’s conclusion applicant knew handling cannabis and respondent’s doubt about applicant’s honesty – Found respondent did not put these allegations to applicant – Found decision to dismiss predetermined – Found no disparity of treatment between applicant and other employees – Dismissal unjustified - REMEDIES – Found reinstatement not practicable or reasonable – 50 per cent contributory conduct – Respondent to pay applicant reimbursement of lost wages, parties to determine quantum - $2,500 compensation appropriate – Security officer |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as security officer. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant informed by fellow employee (“E”) that bag found on floor. Applicant retrieved bag and called surveillance officer (“S”). S claimed applicant said bag contained ‘green’ or weed’. Applicant claimed believed bag rubbish and did not occur to applicant that bag contained drugs. S identified employee who had dropped bag (“A”) and told applicant to dispose of bag. Applicant disposed of bag and contents. Respondent informed by E that E had found bag and that E believed bag contained cannabis. Respondent spoke to applicant and claimed told by applicant that applicant believed bag contained drugs. At subsequent meeting applicant claimed believed bag contained herbs and denied telling respondent previously that believed bag contained drugs. Respondent verified bag contained cannabis. Applicant maintained belief bag contained herbs. Respondent claimed applicant broke protocol by colluding with S to destroy drugs brought onto respondent’s premises by A. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed allegation that applicant colluded with S not put to applicant during disciplinary process. Applicant claimed respondent’s decision to dismiss predetermined. Applicant claimed disparity of treatment as S and A allowed to resign.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Open to respondent to conclude that applicant and S had colluded. Respondent’s decision to dismiss applicant underpinned by respondent’s conclusion applicant knew handling cannabis and respondent’s doubt about applicant’s honesty. Respondent did not put these allegations to applicant. Decision to dismiss predetermined as answers given by applicant when first questioned convinced respondent no viable explanation and influenced respondent’s approach to formal disciplinary meeting. No disparity of treatment as S and A had suggested possibility of resignation whereas applicant had not. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: Applicant sought reinstatement. Applicant’s explanations ranged from inexplicable to implausible and applicant never considered actions wrong. Respondent correct to conclude could not trust applicant again. Reinstatement not practicable or reasonable. 50 per cent contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant reimbursement of lost wages, parties to determine quantum. $2,500 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted; Contributory conduct (50%); Reimbursement of lost wages (parties to determine quantum); Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,500); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(a);ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3)(b);ERA s103A(3)(c);ERA s103A(3)(d);ERA s124;ERA s125;ERA s128(2) |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_182.pdf [pdf 193 KB] |