| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 7/06 |
| Hearing date | 23 Nov 2005 |
| Determination date | 16 January 2006 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | Mr McGovern ; Mr Langton ; S Delamare |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | McKee v General Distributors Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Unauthorised consumption of respondent's product - Video camera footage showed applicant consuming some danish and handful of apricots - Applicant signed security memo prohibiting consumption and sampling of respondent's product - Applicant alleged he had authority to taste test product when necessary - Videotape had been lost so Authority could not view it - Unfortunate that tape not available but absence of it not fatal to investigation and determination of matter - Credibility finding in favour of respondent's witnesses - Applicant well aware of company policies - Authority found that applicant ate the products - Even if Authority wrong on that point, he did not have required authority to taste the products - Respondent did not base decision to dismiss on videotape alone - No disparity of treatment - Investigation thorough and fair in all respects - Dismissal justified - Assistant bakery manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;The Warehouse Ltd v Cooper [2000] 2 ERNZ 351;W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 ; [2001] 3 NZLR 29 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 7_06.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |