Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 180/06
Hearing date 28 Mar 2006 - 21 Apr 2006 (4 days)
Determination date 23 May 2006
Member A Dumbleton
Representation C Lennon ; E Hartdegen
Location Auckland
Parties Kumar v McDonald's Restaurants (New Zealand) Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Summary dismissal - Dismissal resulted from complaints of sexual harassment - The two employees who had complained later gave written statements in which they each purported to withdraw complaints - Applicant admitted making some comments - Applicant alleged in context in which comments were made, the statements were not sexual harassment - Applicant given notice of disciplinary meeting, given full particulars of allegations, and advised of right to have support person at meeting - Also told that dismissal was possible consequence - Second compliant made later and not notified to applicant until after disciplinary enquiry began - Fair process - Retraction of complaint could not turn back clock and destroy justification for dismissal which existed at time dismissal occurred - What was relevant was what complainants told employer at the time, not what they might have told Authority after he had been dismissed - Type of behaviour applicant alleged to have directed towards complainants was sexual harassment as defined - Serious misconduct - Justified dismissal - Had Authority found dismissal unjustified for reason to do with second compliant and way investigated, or way employer handed episode manager observed, Authority would have almost inevitably found contribution by applicant such to disentitle him to any remedies - Order made prohibiting publication of names of both complainants and any information that might identify them - Length of service not specified - Assistant manager
Result Application dismissed ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
Statutes ERA s103A;ERA Second Schedule cl10
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: aa 180_06.pdf [pdf 48 KB]