| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 45/06 |
| Hearing date | 23 Nov 2005 |
| Determination date | 21 February 2006 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | A Golightly ; P Swarbrick |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Thomson v The Farmers' Trading Company Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Unauthorised possession of company property - Credibility finding in favour of respondent - Two previous warnings (one relating to unauthorised possession of property) - Applicant ordered cosmetic testers of products which respondent did not sell - After her department had clean out of obsolete products, applicant took cosmetic testers home - Applicant followed company policy and got her supervisor to check seal bag containing samples - Approval not properly obtained as applicant deliberately did not disclose contents - Loss prevention investigation revealed there were testers which had been ordered but were not instore - Store manager met with applicant several times to discuss alleged unauthorised movement of company property - Fully aware of alleged misconduct - Full opportunity to be heard and have explanations considered - Dismissal justified - Sales person |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ [1990] 1 NZILR 35 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 45_06.pdf [pdf 24 KB] |