| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 98 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jan 2013 - 15 May 2013 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 10 June 2013 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | A Oberndorfer ; P White |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | McManus v Home Direct Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent hiring private investigator as mystery shopper to encourage cash sale and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Whether respondent breached good faith by failing to tell applicant of mystery shopper – Whether respondent’s cash handling policy clear – Whether applicant dishonest - Territory manager |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Mystery shopper genuine. No unjustified disadvantage. Applicant entitled to information relevant to dismissal. Respondent breached good faith by failing to tell applicant mystery shopper not regular customer. Cash handling policy not made clear to applicant. Not fair and reasonable to conclude applicant dishonest. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: 10 per cent contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant reimbursement of lost wages, quantum to be determined. Compensation appropriate, quantum to be determined. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified dismissal); Compensation (Quantum to be determined) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (Quantum to be determined) ; Application dismissed (unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1) – ERA s4(1A) – ERA s4(1A)(c) - ERA s103A – ERA s124 |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_98.pdf [pdf 271 KB] |