| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 570 |
| Hearing date | 17 Oct 2013 - 18 Oct 2013 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 12 December 2013 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | S Kopu ; S Wood |
| Parties | Taiapa v Aotea Finance Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent alleged applicant charged brokerage fees to customers when no brokers involved, charged brokerage fees at level higher than set in memo from managing director, approved loan for amount higher than delegated lending authority permitted and followed incorrect procedure for having customer sign loan document – Applicant suspended - Investigation primarily conducted through correspondence between respondent solicitor and applicant advocate – Veracity of applicant’s responses questioned – Applicant dismissed - Lending officer |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority made order prohibiting publication of names of customers. Applicant’s employment agreement provided for suspension. Applicant not given opportunity to comment on possible suspension. Acrimony could have been avoided if more thought and discussion occurred prior to suspension. Respondent’s conclusions based on unproven beliefs. Respondent declined broker’s offer to talk. Respondent’s rationale for not talking to broker inadequate. Insufficient evidence to determine whether customer complaints solicited. Respondent’s conclusion about brokering fees inconsistent with evidence available. No evidence applicant aware of memo. No evidence applicant’s actions had effect on respondent’s reputation. No clear and consistent procedure regarding signing of documents. No breach of Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant reimbursement of lost wages, quantum to be determined. $8,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (quantum to be determined) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 - ERA s103A – ERA s103A(3)(a) - ERA s103A(3)(c) – ERA s124 - ERA s128(3) - ERA s174 – ERA second schedule cl10 |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards and Hostesses of New Zealand IUOW v Air New Zealand Ltd (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 985 ; [1990] 3 NZLR 549;Graham v Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [2005] ERNZ 587;Honda NZ Limited v NZ (with exceptions) Shipwrights etc Union [1990] 3 NZILR 23;NZ (with exceptions) Shipwrights etc Union v Honda NZ Ltd [1989] 3 NZILR 82;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808;Salt v Fell, Governor for Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands [2008] ERNZ 155 ; [2008] 3 NZLR 193;Telecom New Zealand Ltd v Nutter [2004] 1 ERNZ 315 |
| Number of Pages | 18 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_570.pdf [pdf 352 KB] |