Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2016] NZERA Auckland 116
Hearing date 31 Mar & 1 Apr 2016 (2 days)
Determination date 18 April 2016
Member Anna Fitzgibbon
Representation G Bennett ; D Luttig
Location Auckland
Parties La v Alpha Laboratories (NZ) Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by final written warning and suspension – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent failed to properly investigate allegations leading to final written warning and did not give applicant opportunity to respondent. Decision-maker did not participate in process. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by final written warning. Applicant not told what allegations of serious misconduct were before suspension and so not given opportunity to respond. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension. Insufficient evidence to find that applicant wilfully falsified training records. Respondent did not follow fair process. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $26,564 reimbursement of lost wages. $17,500 compensation appropriate.
Result Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($26,564) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($17,500) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(4);ERA s103A(5);ERA s124;ERA s128(2);ERA s128(3);ERA s174;ERA First Schedule cl12A
Cases Cited Honda NZ Ltd v New Zealand Boilermakers Union [1991] 1 NZLR 392 (CA);La v Alpha Laboratories (NZ) Ltd [2015] NZERA Auckland 158;Makatoa v Restaurant Brands (NZ) Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 311 (EmpC);Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 (CA)
Number of Pages 22
PDF File Link: 2016_NZERA_Auckland_116.pdf [pdf 320 KB]