| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Auckland 247 |
| Hearing date | 19 & 20 July 16 |
| Determination date | 22 July 2016 |
| Member | Tania Tetitaha |
| Representation | S Greening; M Ryan |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Yao v Te Whanau O Waipareira Trust |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - COSTS - Applicant sought contribution towards costs - Software Developer |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant’s false allegation that fellow employee attempted to solicit employment premium was misconduct worthy of dismissal. Dismissal substantively justified. Concerns raised not necessarily replicated in termination email. Information relating to disciplinary investigation not made available to applicant. Applicant could not confirm accuracy of records of disciplinary meeting because he could not understand English and Maori. Procedural flaws not minor and caused unfairness to applicant. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: 50 per cent contributory conduct. $2,500 compensation appropriate. COSTS: Two day investigation meeting. Appropriate to apply notional daily tariff. Respondent to pay applicant $7,000 contribution towards costs. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Contributory conduct (50%) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,500) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($7,000) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A - ERA s103A(3) - ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | BP Oil New Zealand Ltd v Northern Distribution Union [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 (CA);Goodfellow v Building Connexion Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 82;Makatoa v Restaurant Brands (New Zealand) Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 311 (EmpC);Scarborough v Micron Security Products Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 39 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Auckland_247_amended.pdf [pdf 275 KB] |