| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 484 |
| Hearing date | 19 Jun 2013 - 20 Jun 2013 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 21 October 2013 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | G Pollack ; B Scotland |
| Parties | O'Connor v Auckland University Students Association Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent split into five trusts - Company (B") owned by one trust ("S") - Extra duties assumed by applicant as interim measure to deal with B's financial difficulties - Respondent approved capital transfer to B at request of applicant - University Vice Chancellor raised concerns about respondent's financial situation - Independent review of respondent's financial situation carried out - B found to be insolvent - Respondent commenced investigation of issues raised in review - Investigation suggested applicant responsible for actions that could amount to serious misconduct – Seven allegations raised against respondent including provision of negligent advice, misleading respondent and employing close friends without respondent’s approval – Respondent found serious misconduct - Applicant dismissed - General manager" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Nothing arising from disciplinary meeting unfair to applicant. Applicant took no issue with procedural aspects. Applicant actively involved with financial affairs of B. Incomprehensible that respondent should request capital transfer to B. Significant factor in applicant’s dismissal inability to appreciate seriousness of situation and personal responsibilities. Clear respondent’s financial affairs not competently managed. Applicant had final responsibility for ensuring respondent provided with accurate, timely and reliable financial information, and competent advice. Applicant failed to meet requirements associated with role. Respondent entitled to find serious misconduct. No substantive evidence of predetermination. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A(2) – ERA s103A(3) |
| Cases Cited | Chief Executive of the Ministry of Maori Development v Travers-Jones [2003] 1 ERNZ 174;W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 |
| Number of Pages | 35 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_484.pdf [pdf 373 KB] |