| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 103/06 |
| Hearing date | 3 May 2006 |
| Determination date | 14 July 2006 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | SG Wilson ; A Flexman |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Sullivan v Navigant New Zealand Ltd t/a TQ3 Navigant |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Respondent a corporate travel service provider – Dismissed applicant as result of travel arrangements she made for 32 veterans whose travel costs were to be paid by particular Trust – Sponsored veterans travelled with tour party of 143 World War II veterans and supporters to Italy – Trustee of Trust (“X”) was viewed by respondent as an extremely slow payer – Applicant understood that respondent would not extend credit for veterans and there was to be full payment before departure – However applicant relied on X’s promise that money would be paid and did not check whether it had been when she authorised payment for air fares - Shortfall of about $4,500 for each veteran – Six days before departure date respondent’s general manager (“GM”) became aware that X could not pay full amount owing by departure date – Applicant advised GM that decision not to extend credit could cause significant damage to respondent’s reputation – GM felt had no option at late stage but to extend credit to allow veterans to travel – Summarily dismissed applicant for breaching credit policy, exposing respondent to substantial financial risk and misleading respondent as to funding situation – GM reached conclusion that applicant misled him without first putting allegation properly to applicant – Considerable difference between conclusion that applicant deliberately misled respondent and conclusion that she acted honestly but negligently or recklessly in exposing respondent to large level of debt – Unjustified dismissal – Remedies – Mitigation of loss - Applicant applied for 82 different positions over one year period but alleged her age (57) counted against her – Contributory conduct – Most unwise of applicant not to check financial situation or talk to GM before authorising payment – Misconduct was in nature of negligence or recklessness – Although technically not a breach of credit policy applicant’s actions gave respondent no real choice but to extend credit – Given applicant’s exemplary record and success of Italy trip that applicant worked extremely hard on, Authority not satisfied that respondent would have necessarily concluded that her conduct was serious misconduct justifying dismissal – Post-dismissal respondent discovered applicant had been gifted shares in group of companies of which X was managing director – Authority not satisfied that gift of shares and non disclosure was so egregious that it amounted to contributory conduct – Contribution 60% - Length of service with respondent and its predecessors 8 years - Branch Manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($38,234.41 reduced to $15,293.76)(1 year) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($12,000 reduced to $4,800) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s120 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 103_06.pdf [pdf 68 KB] |