Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Wellington
Reference No [2015] NZERA Wellington 44
Hearing date 26 Feb 2015
Determination date 29 April 2015
Member G J Wood
Representation T Hesketh ; J Murphy
Location Palmerston North
Parties Milne v Palmerston North 24/7 Ltd t/a Snap Fitness NZ
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Summary dismissal – Client and staff complaints - Whether applicant’s alleged actions serious misconduct or performance issues – Gym manager
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Problems asserted by respondent largely performance issues that were potentially misconduct, but not serious misconduct. Little evidence to back up other claims of conflict of interest or breach of implied duty of fidelity. Fair and reasonable employer could not have concluded applicant committed serious misconduct. Respondent did not carry out full and fair investigation, properly raise concerns with applicant or adequately consider applicant’s explanations. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $6,000 compensation appropriate.
Result Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A
Cases Cited George v Auckland Council [2014] NZCA 209, [2014] ERNZ 72;Lakeland Health Ltd v Joseph [1997] ERNZ 425 (EmpC);Nimon & Sons Ltd v Buckley (2007) 4 NZELR 743 (EmpC);Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd [1993] 3 ERNZ 483 (CA);Waugh v Commissioner of Police [2004] 1 ERNZ 450 (EmpC)
Number of Pages 12
PDF File Link: 2015_NZERA_Wellington_44.pdf [pdf 186 KB]