| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 7 |
| Hearing date | 19-20 Nov 2013 |
| Determination date | 10 January 2014 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | P Cranney ; P Swarbrick |
| Location | Paihia |
| Parties | Harris v The Warehouse Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant asked customer with dog to leave store as dogs health and safety risk – Multiple interactions with customer – Whether applicant asked customer to leave premises using intimidating behaviour – Whether applicant threatened, intimidated or interfered with person on respondent’s premises – Whether applicant committed sexual or racial harassment or unlawful discrimination – Whether applicant called customer “arrogant” – Whether applicant threatened to have customer served with trespass notice – Applicant suspended – CCTV footage – Maori Wardens – Loss prevention officer |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Witness not pressured into providing false information during interviews and respondent entitled to rely on witness’ information as supporting allegations in letter of complaint. Respondent balanced evidence given by Maori Wardens against CCTV footage and entitled to give evidence of other witness no weight. Applicant admitted situation exacerbated and called customer “arrogant”. Given evidence and applicant’s admissions respondent entitled to conclude applicant’s actions amounted to serious misconduct. Applicant acted properly by asking customer to leave store with dog but subsequent conduct crossed line from rudeness to making customer feel threatened and intimidated. Situation escalated and applicant failed to act appropriately or defuse situation after Maori Warden involvement. Respondent advised applicant of allegations, provided applicant with opportunity to respond and considered applicant’s explanation. Fair and reasonable employer would have considered lack of previous disciplinary procedures or concerns about applicant and fact applicant believed acted in course of duties by asking customer to remove dog from store. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: 100 per cent contributory conduct. |
| Result | Application granted ; Contributory conduct (100%) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3);ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (No 2) [2011] ERNZ 466;Chief Executive of the Ministry of Maori Development v Travers-Jones [2003] 1 ERNZ 174 |
| Number of Pages | 19 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_7.pdf [pdf 296 KB] |