| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 267/05 |
| Hearing date | 7 Apr 2005 - 28 Apr 2005 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 13 July 2005 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | J Watson ; P Swarbrick |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Logan v Hagal Company Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Summary dismissal - Video surveillance - Alleged applicant removed product from respondent's premises without authorisation and without satisfactory explanation - Use of video surveillance lawful and fair - Staff not notified about surveillance - Set up in response to concerns about stock and financial discrepancies - Position of camera did not infringe on privacy rights of employees or customers - Covert video surveillance neither unlawful nor unfair - Applicant given disciplinary investigation letter on way to visit ill father - Meeting held day after father's funeral - Process of investigating allegations did not allow for full and fair investigation - Applicant not told of specific allegations before meeting - Respondent had benefit of watching tapes many times before coming to conclusion - Only fair applicant had more opportunity to consider properly what was shown to her and to think through what happened on days in question - Situation regarding meeting day after father's funeral required more sensitivity - Procedurally unfair - Difficult to hold that a conclusion of serious misconduct could be found - Remedies - Contributory conduct 50 percent - After dismissal applicant was interviewed by police - Sought damages associated with employing barrister to assist her with police inquiry - Up to police to determine whether or not to investigate and then proceed with charges - Not matter for employer - Police enquiry too remote from actions of employer to sustain claim |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($3,471 reduced to $1,735.50)(12 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000 reduced to $2,500) ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards and Hostesses of NZ IUOW v Air NZ Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 584 ; [1990] 3 NZLR 549;Drummond v Coca-Cola Bottlers NZ Ltd [1995] 2 ERNZ 229;Man O' War Farm Ltd v Bree [2003] 1 ERNZ 83;Medic Corporation Ltd v Barrett [1992] 3 ERNZ 523;North Island Wholesale Groceries v Hewin [1982] 2 NZLR 176;NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 267_05.pdf [pdf 47 KB] |