| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 18/06 |
| Hearing date | 2 Dec 2005 |
| Determination date | 02 February 2006 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | D Jacobson ; P Harvey (in person) |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | King v Harvey t/a Flowers by Trish |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Respondent offered applicant first option to buy business and parties began to negotiate - Respondent called meeting and summarily dismissed applicant for general reasons of failing to comply with instructions and undermining business by informing suppliers of respondent's financial situation - When applicant asked for specifics was told she had refused to incorporate sunflowers in corporate arrangements that morning - Respondent later gave other reasons - Section 103A Employment Relations Act 2000 applied - Authority had to make objective assessment of respondent's actions and weigh those actions against those of fair and reasonable employer in all the circumstances at the time - Convenient to consider whether respondent had good reasons for actions it took in respect of applicant's employment and whether she was treated fairly in process - Demonstrating that following steps were followed essential to showing that dismissal for serious misconduct justified: full, fair and thorough investigation; giving employee opportunity to be heard; reasons had to be given to employee before dismissal - Employer could only defend dismissal relying on reasons giving at time - Majority of concerns in question historical and could not give rise to justifiable grounds to dismiss applicant - Manner of dismissal completely inconsistent with rules of natural justice - Real reason behind dismissal was respondent's belief applicant had informed suppliers of financial position of respondent in order giver her an advantage in negotiations on purchase of business - Unjustified dismissal - Remedies - No contributory conduct as applicant did nothing to deliberately damage or undermine respondent's business - COSTS - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Respondent directed to pay applicant reasonable contribution to costs - Head florist |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($7,871)(6 months) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1,500) |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s120;ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards and Hostesses of New Zealand IUOW v Air New Zealand Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 584;Donaldson and Youngman v Dickson [1994] 1 ERNZ 920 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 18_06.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |