| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Wellington 75 |
| Hearing date | 26 Jan 2017 - 27 Jan 2017 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 14 August 2017 |
| Member | M Loftus |
| Representation | G Lloyd ; K Dunn, M Mau |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Bradley v SmithS City (Southern) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by the way he was suspended prior to dismissal |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Satisfied applicant had an opportunity to comment on suspension proposal. Suspension lawful. No unjustified disadvantage. Respondent made provisional decision to dismiss before it received applicants written submission. Respondent made no effort to talk to other staff about allegations against applicant. Respondent’s investigation was deficient and information used in decision to dismiss was insufficient. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: 33% contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant reimbursement of two months lost wages. $4,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified dismissal) ; Contributory conduct (33%) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (2 months wages) ; Compensation for humiliation etc. ($4,000) ; Application dismissed (unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s124; ERA s174C(3); ERA s174C(4) |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 160 ; De Bruin v Canterbury District Health Board [2012] NZEmpC 110 ; Gazeley v Oceania Group (NZ) Ltd [2012] NZERA Christchurch 261 ; Hall v Dionex Pty Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 29 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Wellington_75.pdf [pdf 125 KB] |