| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 415 |
| Hearing date | 17 Spe 2012 - 6 Nov 2012 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 23 November 2012 |
| Member | A Fitzgibbon |
| Representation | P Craggs ; R Pool |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Taylor v Paul & Kym Samuels Ltd t/a New World Southmall |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed despite applicant’s knowledge of respondent’s procedure prohibiting employees from taking items without payment, applicant took bread as gift for customer without paying – Authority found applicant admitted had knowingly breached procedure – Found applicant had ample opportunity to raise matter and pay for breach but took no steps to do so before S requested applicant attend meeting four hours later – Found applicant’s conduct serious misconduct as was conduct that deeply impaired and was destructive of respondent’s trust and confidence in applicant – Dismissal justified – Found alternatively if applicant’s dismissal unjustified, no remedies would have been awarded as applicant entirely responsible for events leading to personal grievance - Supervisor |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as supervisor. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Respondent claimed applicant justifiably dismissed as due to applicant’s experience and position was very familiar with purchasing procedure for staff (“procedure”). Procedure stated all staff purchases must be paid for at time of purchase. Applicant accepted that any of respondent’s items purchased by employees had to be purchased in strict accordance with procedure and ‘point of purchase’ was when item scanned at counter. Respondent claimed despite applicant’s knowledge of procedure, applicant took bread as gift for customer without paying (“incident”). Respondent's regular customer (“R”) called applicant to place order by phone each week as unable to pack order themselves. Applicant would select items for R, scan through checkout and leave for R to collect. On day of incident applicant included bread in R’s groceries as gift as was new product applicant thought R would like. Applicant instructed employee at checkout not to scan bread and was placed with R’s groceries for collection. Applicant did not pay for bread before placed in R's bags as did not have cash and claimed intended to pay for bread during break. Applicant claimed interruption during break meant applicant forgot needed to pay for bread. Applicant claimed did not remember needed to pay for bread until respondent director (“S”), who had discovered incident, requested meeting. Procedure part of parties’ EA and stated checkout operators not permitted to scan through own purchases and any breach of procedure amounted to serious misconduct and employee could be dismissed. Applicant accepted aware that any breach of procedure could result in disciplinary action including dismissal. Respondent concluded applicant should be dismissed.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant admitted had knowingly breached procedure. Applicant had ample opportunity to raise matter and pay for bread but took no steps to do so before S requested applicant attend meeting four hours later. Due to applicant’s position, applicant thoroughly familiar with procedure and importance of employee compliance. Applicant’s conduct serious misconduct as was conduct that deeply impaired and was destructive of respondent’s basic trust and confidence in applicant. S undertook thorough investigation into matter including several meetings and giving applicant opportunity to comment on matter. Applicant’s dismissal was conclusion fair and reasonable employer could have reached in circumstances. Dismissal justified. Alternatively if applicant’s dismissal unjustified, no remedies would have been awarded as applicant entirely responsible for events leading to personal grievance. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(2);ERA s103A(3);ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | McKean v Ports of Auckland Ltd (2011) 9 NZELR 24 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_415.pdf [pdf 302 KB] |