| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 299 |
| Hearing date | 10 Jun 2014 |
| Determination date | 11 July 2014 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | W Reid ; R Upton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Anderson v Oceania Group (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Removal of four litre tin of stain for applicant's personal use without authorisation - Whether disparity of treatment - Whether stain removed replacement for applicant's own stain - Maintenance person |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Theft, misappropriation or conversion of employer's property to employee's use serious misconduct. Policy incorporated into parties' employment agreement defined possession or use of respondent's property without authorisation as serious misconduct. Respondent had become aware previously of culture of staff removing plant and equipment for own use. Respondent held meeting with maintenance staff and put note on intranet making clear removal of plant or equipment without authorisation forbidden. Applicant aware of respondent's expectations. Any residue stain leftover from applicant's previous work as contractor belonged to applicant but applicant knew that stain actually removed from respondent did not belong to applicant. Neither example relied on by applicant to show disparity of treatment in any way similar to applicant's behaviour. Respondent not required to conduct more elaborate investigation and respondent satisfied procedural fairness obligations. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_299.pdf [pdf 161 KB] |