| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Auckland 22 |
| Hearing date | 6 Nov 2015 - 7 Nov 2015 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 29 January 2015 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | P Dawson ; G Steele |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | French v Waikato Business Publications Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Performance concerns – Applicant breached company policies – Respondent dismissed applicant for serious misconduct - Whether applicant disadvantaged by disciplinary investigation – Whether respondent provided hostile working environment - Whether respondent failed to provide a safe workplace – Whether applicant disadvantaged by respondent’s refusal to attend mediation during disciplinary process– Whether allegations of serious misconduct a disadvantage – Whether respondent disadvantaged applicant by finding serious misconduct –- Sales account manager |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent had right to raise performance concerns about applicant and commence disciplinary investigation. Respondent gave applicant notice of performance concerns and allowed applicant to try to rectify them. Applicant refused to engage with respondent. Respondent did not provide hostile working environment. Applicant’s stress probably caused by respondent’s performance concerns. Respondent entitled to refuse mediation during disciplinary process since mediation voluntary. Respondent had right to finish disciplinary investigation before committing to further action through mediation. Respondent tried to engage with applicant in other ways. Respondent permitted to raise serious misconduct allegations with applicant. Respondent raised misconduct separately from other claims and tried to engage with applicant again. Reasonable and fair employer could have concluded applicant committed serious misconduct by crediting a client without permission in breach of company policies. No unjustified disadvantage. Fair and reasonable employer could have concluded applicant committed serious misconduct. Respondent properly investigated allegations, provided applicant with all relevant information and allowed applicant opportunity to comment. Applicant declined opportunity to explain and refused to engage with respondent. Respondent acted as a fair and reasonable employer in circumstances. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Number of Pages | 27 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Auckland_22.pdf [pdf 292 KB] |