| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 188/06 |
| Hearing date | 1 Mar 2006 |
| Determination date | 30 May 2006 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | C Patterson ; R Steel |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Corbett v Bendon Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Misconduct - Summary dismissal – Applicant dismissed after respondent discovered applicant had created company to develop own lingerie line – Company website solicited advances from prospective manufacturers - Conflict of interest clause in employment agreement prohibited applicant from “engaging in business activity” that “may affect ability to discharge duties and responsibilities to respondent” – Both elements required for conflict to exist - Applicant’s company intended to become business in normal sense of word not just hobby or fun – Searching for manufacturers to produce orders was activity in relation to present or future business – “Engaging in business activity” wider than “being in business” – Reasonable for respondent to conclude applicant engaged in business activity – If potential manufacturers had contacted applicant her ability to discharge employment duties and responsibilities may have been affected – Many opportunities for applicant to promote own product to respondent’s customers – Reasonable to conclude conflict of interest existed – Breach sufficiently serious to justify summary dismissal – Walker v Aitken (cited below) distinguished – Location of disciplinary meeting in public food hall unsatisfactory but did not materially detract from fairness of enquiry – Respondent acted with unnecessary haste when dismissed applicant on phone immediately after disciplinary meeting – Lapse not enough by itself to render dismissal unjustified – Dismissal substantively and procedurally justified - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Alleged unjustified suspension - One day suspension on pay during disciplinary process – Suspension conformed with express term of employment agreement – No material disadvantage suffered – GOOD FAITH – No breach of good faith by respondent – Length of service six weeks – Lingerie sales consultant |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Tisco v Communication & Energy Workers Union [1993] 2 ERNZ 779;Walker v Aitken [1993] 2 ERNZ 240 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 188_06.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |