Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 504/05
Hearing date 4 Oct 2005
Determination date 04 January 2006
Member K J Anderson
Representation J Watson ; G Wilkin
Location Auckland
Parties Te Tomo v Hamilton Taxi Society Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant dismissed for allocating or feeding" work to her mother, who was a contractor taxi driver for respondent - Respondent had strict policy preventing "feeding" of work to drivers - Respondent discovered two phone calls between applicant and her mother about client requiring a taxi - Applicant alleged that another employee ("B"), who logged call from client, suggested she should ring her mother about job - Applicant dismissed for serious misconduct - Decision to dismiss not one which fair and reasonable employer would have taken in particular circumstances - No full and proper investigation - Respondent obliged to interview B before reaching conclusion - Respondent would have discovered allocation of job was largely administered by B - Would have concluded that both applicant and B equally at fault - Reasonable for applicant to take some guidance from more experienced operator - B only received written warning - Some doubt over whether there was intention to "feed" applicant's mother job - Allegedly duplicitous manner in which applicant's mother did job could not reasonably be visited upon applicant but it had major bearing on decision to dismiss - Element of pre-determination - Remedies - Contributory conduct in respect of applicant's highly irregular behaviour - Call centre operator"
Result Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($4,936 reduced to $3,456) ; Compensation for humiliation ($4,000 reduced to $2,800) ; Costs reserved
Statutes ERA s103A;ERA s128(2)
Cases Cited Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil NZ Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483
Number of Pages 6
PDF File Link: PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy.