| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 4/06 |
| Hearing date | 30 Nov 2005 |
| Determination date | 17 January 2006 |
| Member | G J Wood;G J Wood |
| Representation | G Ogilvie ; R Foitzik |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | About Demolition & Contracting (2003) Ltd v Greening |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Manager of applicant/respondent (AD") became aware respondent/applicant ("G") had paid herself twice for one week - G admitted mistake and agreed to pay back money - Manager's other concerns not pursued following G's explanations but he remained extremely concerned about double payment issue - G subsequently notified manager that $9,000 had been transferred from AD's bank account to his personal bank account - Manager considered G person most likely responsible for unauthorised action - G indicated she had no knowledge of transfers - While G on stress leave police determined that transfers made from G's personal computer - G explained she accidentally transferred three lots of $3,000 after being told by manager to transfer $300 for expenses - AD did not accept G's explanations and G dismissed for serious misconduct - Principle issue for determination was justification of dismissal - Employer in this situation did not have to prove actual wrongdoing, but rather carry out inquiries to reasonable extent in all circumstances - Overall dismissal process was fair even if not ideal - What had to be assessed objectively was whether or not fair and reasonable employer would, more likely than not, have dismissed G if it reasonably concluded she had deliberately committed any or all of offences AD believed she committed - Fair and reasonable employer would most likely have dismissed any employee in this situation - No personal grievance - COUNTERCLAIM - BREACH OF CONTRACT - AD sought damages of one week's wages for stress leave, $320 spent on disciplinary investigation and $450 for cost of shifting premises - Applicant entitled to sick leave - Costs of disciplinary investigation were ones AD should have met as part of cost of doing business - No evidence shifting of premises caused by G's actions - AD's claims dismissed - Accounts/Office administrator" |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards and Hostesses of NZ IUOW v Air NZ Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 584 ; [1990] 3 NZLR 549; (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 985;Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan [2005] 1 ERNZ 767;Chief Executive of the Ministry of Maori Development v Travers-Jones [2003] 1 ERNZ 174 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 4_06.pdf [pdf 57 KB] |