| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 171/05 |
| Hearing date | 18 Oct 2005 |
| Determination date | 01 November 2005 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | D McLeod ; S Kelly |
| Location | Napier |
| Parties | Tamarua v Toll NZ Consolidated Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Dismissed for taking eight jars of jam - Unblemished record - Respondent had installed camera surveillance because property was disappearing - Applicant adamant that jars he took were from a consignment that was going to be dumped and he took product only because it was rubbish - A single outbreak of dishonest behaviour could be so destructive of relationship of trust and confidence - Respondent's position plainly stated - Applicant had no authority to take jam - Dismissal justified - No evidence to support claim that applicant had been dismissed to save respondent cost of making him redundant - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - No disadvantage by procedure adopted by respondent in lead up to dismissal of applicant - Applicant elected to sign document acknowledging had been warned of potential dismissal - Evidence disclosed no basis for claim that applicant unfairly disadvantaged by respondent's process because insufficient regard was had to fact English was his second language and/or because of his cultural background - No unjustified disadvantage - Freight handler |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Barratt v Effem Foods Ltd unreported, Goddard CJ, 21 September 1993, WEC 24/93 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 171_05.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |