| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 70 |
| Hearing date | 23 - 24 Jan 2013 |
| Determination date | 24 April 2013 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | B Fletcher ; D Erickson, J Greenleaf |
| Location | Blenheim |
| Parties | McIntyre v Pernod Ricard New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Authority found respondent failed to conduct full investigation and question all relevant witnesses – Found respondent did not confirm notes of conversations with witnesses and notes of disciplinary meeting summation and interpretation of replies rather than verbatim record – Found respondent failed to put statement of employee to applicant although statement central to decision to dismiss applicant – Found evidence respondent predetermined dismissal as witness comments favourable to applicant not considered – Dismissal unjustified - REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Respondent to pay applicant $9,685 reimbursement of lost wages – $5,163 compensation for loss of superannuation, medical insurance, vehicle and wine allowance benefits appropriate - $5,000 compensation appropriate – Manager |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as manager. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant called to disciplinary meeting following complaint from other employee (“E”) regarding five incidents in which E claimed applicant used abusive, offensive or threatening language towards E, shouted at E, and twice hinted E would be replaced. Prior to meeting respondent interviewed various employees. Applicant claimed not abusive or threatening towards E during any incidents and did not threaten to replace E. Applicant’s assistant manager (“S”) at disciplinary meeting claimed present during three incidents and applicant not abusive towards E. Respondent stated S’s input inappropriate. Respondent claimed applicant angry during interview and made negative comments regarding E. Applicant admitted communication style and staff management needed improvement. Applicant dismissed.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent failed to conduct full investigation and question all relevant witnesses. S present during number of alleged incidents but not formally interviewed. Respondent’s conclusion regarding one incident contradicted by employee present during incident who claimed applicant not abusive. Respondent did not confirm notes of conversations with witnesses and notes of disciplinary meeting summation and interpretation of replies rather than verbatim record. Respondent failed to put statement of another employee who interacted with E to applicant although statement central to decision to dismiss applicant. Evidence respondent predetermined dismissal as witness comments favourable to applicant not considered. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $9,685 reimbursement of lost wages. $5,163 compensation for loss of superannuation, medical insurance, vehicle and wine allowance benefits appropriate. $5,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($9,685) ; Compensation for loss of benefits ($5,163.75) (superannuation, medical insurance, vehicle allowance, wine allowance) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s103A;ERA s124;ERA s128(2) |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_70.pdf [pdf 183 KB] |