| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 279 |
| Hearing date | 1 Oct 2012 |
| Determination date | 19 December 2012 |
| Member | C Hickey |
| Representation | J Guthrie ; F McMillan |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Drew v Pact Group |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found respondent entitled to prefer evidence of applicant’s supervisor that would not have commenced investigation into disappearance of wood if gave applicant permission to take wood – Found applicant’s belief entitled to take wood for personal use not reasonable and act of dishonesty – Respondent conducted thorough and fair process in investigation and decision-making - Dismissal justified – RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Whether unjustified disadvantage grievance raised within 90 days – Found unjustified disadvantage grievance not raised within 90 days – Grounds and maintenance supervisor |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as grounds and maintenance supervisor. Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s withdrawal of vehicle and decision not to discipline other employee for drinking and driving and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Respondent claimed applicant’s unjustified disadvantage grievance not raised within 90 days. Applicant claimed asked permission to purchase firewood owned by respondent. Applicant claimed told by supervisor (“K”) price needed to be decided and K would get back to applicant. K claimed allowed applicant to take ‘a few pieces of wood’ from wood pile as favour to applicant. K later observed wood pile significantly diminished and commenced investigation. Applicant admitted took two loads of wood but claimed permission given by K with understanding price to be decided. K denied giving permission to take large quantity of wood. Following disciplinary meeting conducted by K’s manager and opportunity for applicant to respond to respondent director’s preliminary conclusion, applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed did not deny taking wood showing honestly believed entitled to take wood. Applicant claimed K overly involved in investigation, relied on own evidence and respondent did not investigate wood taken by other staff member or provided to other staff member by K. Respondent claimed K would not have commenced investigation if K had given applicant permission to take large quantity of wood.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent entitled to prefer K’s evidence would not have commenced investigation into disappearance of wood if gave applicant permission to take wood. Respondent could conclude applicant’s belief entitled to take wood for personal use not reasonable and act of dishonesty. Applicant given reasonable opportunity to respond to allegation and respondent considered applicant’s explanation before dismissing applicant. Applicant not disadvantaged by K’s involvement in process as K did not initiate process alone, did not conduct disciplinary meeting and did not make decision to dismiss applicant. Wood taken by other staff member for clients’ use and K acted within delegated authority when provided wood to other staff member. Respondent thorough and fair in investigation, inquiry and decision-making process. Dismissal justified.;RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE: Unjustified disadvantage grievance not raised within 90 days. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(5);ERA s114 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_279.pdf [pdf 191 KB] |