| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 234 |
| Hearing date | 10 Oct 2013, 18 Oct 2013 |
| Determination date | 13 November 2013 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | D Beck ; P Shaw |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Lopas v Sabema Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Applicant claimed dismissal pre determined due to run-ins with respondent regarding sums deducted from applicant's pay - Disparate treatment - Applicant claimed signed form under duress saying applicant had received training - Several issues raised by respondent - Warning after breach of cash handling policy - Reduction in hours - Request for leave declined - Failure to ensure customers paid for stock - Failure to follow respondent policies and procedures - Final warning - Whether applicant allowed applicant to take stock after card declined;RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Whether grievance raised within 90 days - Two parts to grievance - Applicant claimed grieved by reduction in hours without full explanation and grieved by reduction as form of punishment;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by reduction in hours as form of punishment |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Dismissal not premeditated or improperly motivated. Respondent had genuine reasons for dismissal. Applicant attempted to perform role to best ability but made series of errors and did not improve. Respondent gave applicant ample opportunity to reduce errors to acceptable level. Unfair for respondent not to give applicant opportunity to view footage relied on. Good faith required respondent to forewarn applicant of disciplinary sanction. Failure to show applicant footage not minor and resulted in unfair treatment. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: 25 per cent contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $4,241 reimbursement of lost wages. $5,625 compensation appropriate.;RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE: Grievance related to lack of explanation not raised within 90 days. Applicant not aware that reduction could have been punishment until later date, therefore 90 days runs from later date. Grievance related to deduction as punishment raised within 90 days.;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Mix of reasons for reduction but unable to conclude punishment as reason. No unjustified disadvantage. |
| Result | Applications partially granted; Contributory conduct (25%); Reimbursement of lost wages ($4,241.25); Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,625); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c) - ERA s103A - ERA 114(1) - ERA s114(3) - ERA s114(4) - ERA 124 - ERA s124(a) - ERA 128(2) - ERA s128(3) - Holidays Act 2003 |
| Cases Cited | Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] ERNZ 517;Goodfellow v Building Connexion Ltd t/a ITM Building Centre [2010] NZEmpC 82;Mercer v Maori Television Service [2010] NZEmpC 133;Paul v Capital and Coast District Health Board [2005] ERNZ 197;Silver Fern Farms Ltd v North [2010] ERNZ 172;Wyatt v Simpson Grierson (A Partnership) [2007] ERNZ 489 |
| Number of Pages | 22 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_234.pdf [pdf 295 KB] |