| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 89/06 |
| Hearing date | 3 May 2006 - 4 May 2006 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 08 June 2006 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | H Baynes ; P Cullen |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Laffey v Trust House Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Unaccounted for cash found in applicant's till - Video camera placed above till - Claimed instructed to use open till practice in busy periods by manager - Dismissed after audit of video surveillance - Respondent attempted to amend grounds for dismissal - No clear written policy on till practices - Varying practices used - Not clear whether instruction given - Staff not trained in coherent and consistent manner about till procedures - Respondent failed to properly investigate applicant's response - Respondent did not interview manager regarding alleged instruction - This was significant omission, as applicant consistently relied on that instruction - Lost opportunity to determine credibility of applicant's claim and to test understanding of major authorised variation to golden rule" - Also failed to speak with other employees when told they could confirm applicant's account - Allegations should have been put to applicant as part of investigation - Not for applicant to produce witnesses, but fairly and reasonably respondent should have spoken to them before dismissing - Reasonable to expect staff be given consistent training, and have clear instructions - Would have been fair and reasonable to have undertaken at time of original investigation the same subsequent in-depth scrutiny - No direct video evidence of applicant taking money - Fair and reasonable employer would not have determined in original circumstances that applicant's behaviour amounted to misappropriation or breach of company's unwritten procedures - More than faith in a "golden rule" required in respect of such serious allegation - Requirement for clear instruction sharper as applicant was previously orally warned about practice - Claim in reality was not of misappropriation but of failing to account for money - Failure to account best addressed through applicant's contributory fault - Unjustified dismissal - Remedies - 50% contribution - No explanation of errors - Failed to account for all transactions - Length of service four years - Restaurant supervisor" |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (quantum to be determined by parties) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($15,000 reduced to $7,500) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | s103A ERA |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Limited v Hudson [2006] 1 ERNZ 415;Honda NZ Ltd v NZ etc Shipwrights etc IUOW [1990] 3 NZELC 98;Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil NZ Limited [1992] 2 ERNZ 483 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 89_06.pdf [pdf 77 KB] |