| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 27 |
| Hearing date | 25 Sep 2012 |
| Determination date | 25 January 2013 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | M Moncur ; J Clark |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Lim v Kerrick Industries Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Whether equipment unwanted by respondent’s client given to applicant personally or received by applicant on respondent’s behalf – Whether applicant knew equipment still of value to respondent – Whether applicant instructed to remain in workshop – Final written warning – COUNTERCLAIM – BREACH OF CONTRACT – Respondent sought damages for applicant’s breach of employment agreement – COUNTERCALIM – GOOD FAITH – PENALTY – Respondent sought penalty for applicant’s breach of good faith duty – Whether applicant’s actions misleading and deceptive – Whether applicant not responsive or communicative during investigation – Field service technician |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant obliged to inform respondent of circumstances of acquiring equipment before assuming applicant had right to possession. Applicant deprived respondent of opportunity to utilise potential value of equipment. Applicant’s actions in circumstances serious misconduct. Dismissal justified.;COUNTERCLAIM – BREACH OF CONTRACT: Implied term of employment agreement applicant alleged to have breached unclear. Respondent could have requested return of equipment up to time of applicant’s dismissal. No damages.;COUNTERCLAIM – GOOD FAITH – PENALTY: Applicant misguided rather than misleading and deceptive. Allegation applicant not responsive or communicative during investigation meeting not proved. No breach of good faith duty. No penalty. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s103A(2);ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(4) |
| Cases Cited | Craig v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd (2008) 5 NZELR 786;W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 ; [2001] 3 NZLR 29 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_27.pdf [pdf 244 KB] |