| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 321 |
| Hearing date | 27 Jul 2012 |
| Determination date | 12 September 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | B Harris ; P Swarbrick |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Fisher v The Warehouse Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant justifiably dismissed for breach of policies regarding use of staff discount and ‘rainchecks’ – Authority found applicant trained in appropriate policies and knew wrong to use staff discount for benefit of family members unless purchase was gift – Found assistant manager did not give permission for transaction – Found applicant breached respondent’s policy with respect to ‘rainchecks’ by seeking to obtain benefit for family member not entitled to benefit and when person obtaining ‘raincheck’ not physically present – Found respondent entitled to conclude had lost trust and confidence in applicant as senior staff member and applicant’s actions amounted cumulatively to serious misconduct – Dismissal justified – Product services team member |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as product services team member. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant sought approval from assistant manager (“F”) to apply staff discount to hire purchase transaction applicant entering into on behalf of applicant’s daughter. Applicant claimed spoke to F three times and received permission during final conversation. F claimed uncertain of position, undertook to make inquiries and told applicant to ask later, but did not speak to applicant again. Applicant completed hire purchase application next day on behalf of daughter and used staff discount to pay for items purchased on deposit. Following two disciplinary meetings respondent concluded applicant’s actions misuse of staff discount and applicant used ‘raincheck’ procedure to preserve price when ‘raincheck’ only allowed when particular store did not have item in stock and when person obtaining ‘raincheck’ physically present. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed ‘raincheck’ nothing more than quote and other staff not disciplined for using ‘raincheck’ system for exactly same purpose.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant trained in appropriate policies and knew wrong to use staff discount for benefit of family members unless purchase was gift. Applicant accepted first discussion with F did not result in permission to undertake transaction. Inconsistencies between applicant’s evidence to respondent and evidence to Authority meant more likely applicant did not speak to F again before undertaking transaction and F did not give permission for transaction. Even if applicant obtained F’s permission, applicant senior staff member with significant experience and ought to have known could not use staff discount for the whole transaction when only part was gift. Applicant did not provide evidence to respondent about use by other staff of ‘raincheck’ procedure during disciplinary process. Applicant breached respondent’s policy with respect to ‘rainchecks’ by seeking to obtain benefit for family member not entitled to benefit and when person obtaining ‘raincheck’ not physically present. Respondent entitled to conclude had lost trust and confidence in applicant as senior staff member and applicant’s actions amounted cumulatively to serious misconduct. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_321.pdf [pdf 218 KB] |