| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 269 |
| Hearing date | 8 Mar 2012 - 9 Mar 2012 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 12 December 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | P Churchman ; D Hudson |
| Location | Balclutha |
| Parties | Gilder v Combined Rural Traders Society Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found respondent did not consider applicant’s explanations - Found no enforcement of policies by respondent and these superseded by on job training – Found respondent did not follow required procedure in dismissing applicant – Found applicant did not have opportunity to address two of four decision makers - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - Respondent to pay applicant $19,732 reimbursement of lost wages - $8,000 compensation appropriate – Retail Manager |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as retail manager. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Incident occurred when 20 bonus items, items not ordered by respondent but sent by supplier, found during stocktake when respondent’s records did not refer to 20 further bonus items. Applicant advised employee to record lower stock number and offset bonus stock against deficiency in similar stock. Applicant claimed was taught to treat bonus stock in that manner. Respondent’s policy stated bonus stock should always be placed into recorded stock. Applicant absent when bonus stock policy disseminated. Applicant asked to meet with respondent regional manager for ‘quick chat’ which applicant claimed was unannounced disciplinary meeting. Respondent sent applicant letter following day claiming applicant had deliberately manipulated stock and inventory records. At subsequent meeting applicant verbally advised of dismissal and confirmed in writing following day.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent did not consider applicant’s explanation for treatment of bonus stock. Respondent’s policy regarding bonus stock superseded by training applicant received on job. Applicant entitled to consider respondent’s district manager, who advised to act as normally did, applicant’s manager. Applicant did not have working knowledge of respondent’s policies and respondent did not properly enforce policies and procedures. No evidence of malice or attempt to deceive by applicant. Accidental breach of rules did not normally justify dismissal. Respondent did not follow required process in dismissing applicant. Applicant did not have opportunity to address two of four decision makers. Applicant not advised of key allegations. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $19,732 reimbursement of lost wages. $8,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000); Reimbursement of lost wages ($19,732.80); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3)(b);ERA s103A(3)(c);ERA s103A(3)(d);ERA s124;ERA s128(2);Interpretation Act 1999 s4;Interpretation Act 1999 s7 |
| Cases Cited | Glengarry Hancocks Ltd v Madden [1998] 3 ERNZ 361;Goodman Fielder New Zealand Ltd v Ali [2003] 2 ERNZ 65;Irvines Freightlines Ltd v Cross [1993] 1 ERNZ 424;Nutter v Telecom New Zealand Ltd [2003] 2 ERNZ 234;New Zealand Freezing etc Clerical Officers' IUOW v Huttons Kiwi Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 504;Otumarama Private Hospital Ltd v Bell [1995] 2 ERNZ 491 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_269.pdf [pdf 187 KB] |