| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 113/05 |
| Hearing date | 4 Jul 2005 |
| Determination date | 23 August 2005 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | P james ; B McDonald |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Blair v Taylors Master Valet Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Respondent received allegations from applicant’s uncle that applicant had been taking stock items for her mother’s competing business - Applicant’s till down by $120 and video from security camera showed applicant removing money from till - Concerns over discrepancies between applicant’s timesheets and actual finishing times - Letter to applicant containing allegations - Applicant left work and never returned - Subsequent further allegations of opening and withholding confidential company mail relating to deducting court fines from applicant’s wages, endangering clientele by handing out business cards for mother’s business, and breaching confidentiality by relaying business information such as names of new agencies and pricing and quotes to mother’s business - Applicant provided with copies of relevant material including videotape - Dismissed following disciplinary meeting - Investigation and dismissal not retaliation for previous grievance against respondent by applicant’s mother - Respondent justified in concluding applicant took stock and money and hid confidential company mail - Fair and reasonable investigation - Applicant had fair chance to respond to those allegations - Proper consideration given to applicant’s attack on uncle’s motivations for making allegations - Concern about timesheets not adequately put to applicant as she believed allegations related to two specific dates only - Therefore no opportunity to address full range of respondent’s concerns about timesheets - Respondent failed to prove justification for belief that applicant breached confidentiality or endangered clientele - Both concerns based largely on supposition and basis for concerns not properly put to applicant - Proven grounds supported conclusion of serious misconduct and applicant would have been dismissed regardless of unproven grounds - No unjustified dismissal |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever New Zealand Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 ; [2001] 3 NZLR 29 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 113_05.pdf [pdf 54 KB] |