| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 39 |
| Hearing date | 7 Dec 2012 |
| Determination date | 26 February 2013 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | J Black ; A Higgins |
| Location | Timaru |
| Parties | Hammond v Palladio Holdings Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found more thorough investigation by respondent required as applicant young, inexperienced and facing serious allegation - Found procedures applicant accused of breaching confused - Found applicant’s denial of taking money from gaming till stemmed from misunderstanding and respondent should have considered this – Found fair and reasonable employer could not have concluded applicant had been dishonest - Found after more thorough investigation fair and reasonable employer would have instituted training for applicant rather than dismissing applicant - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - Respondent to pay applicant $6,217 reimbursement of lost wages - $7,500 compensation appropriate - Guest Services Attendant |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as guest services attendant. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant worked at respondent’s bar and gaming room. Customer handed $24 in coins to applicant to change for notes. Customer left bar without collecting notes. Applicant asked colleague (“S”) to leave money on bar in bag intending to treat as tip and divide with S if unclaimed. General manager (“H”) found money following day and placed in gaming till intending to bank with Pub Charity. Applicant found bag in gaming till and left half on bar for S. Applicant claimed believed followed correct practice. S did not take money as contradicted S’s training. S’s money subsequently found by H who called applicant to meeting. Applicant denied removed money from gaming till. Following meeting H viewed video footage and claimed footage showed money removed from gaming till by applicant. H claimed lost trust in applicant. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed money not unclaimed winnings at point when customer left bar therefore Pub Charity winnings procedure did not apply. Applicant claimed money did not come out of gaming till float. Evidence from previous manager who trained applicant small sums were divided between staff and not treated as Pub Charity winnings.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority ordered non-publication of name of former manager. While applicant did not say much during disciplinary meeting, more thorough investigation required as applicant young, inexperienced and facing serious allegation and procedures applicant accused of breaching confused. Applicant’s denial of taking money from gaming till stemmed from misunderstanding and made no sense given applicant clearly did so but did not attempt to hide actions and H should have considered whether denial stemmed from misunderstanding. Respondent did not sufficiently investigate allegations against applicant. Fair and reasonable employer could not have concluded applicant had been dishonest. More thorough investigation likely to have uncovered fact applicant learnt approach regarding money left behind bar from training and should have convinced fair and reasonable employer to institute training rather than dismiss applicant. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $6,217 reimbursement of lost wages. $7,500 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted; Reimbursement of lost wages ($6,217.13); Compensation for humiliation etc ($7,500); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s124;ERA s128;Evidence Act 2006 s60;Gambling Act 2003 |
| Cases Cited | Honda NZ Ltd v NZ (with exceptions) Shipwrights etc Union (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 855 ; [1991] 1 NZLR 392 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_39.pdf [pdf 248 KB] |