| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 70A/06 |
| Hearing date | 22 Jun 2006 |
| Determination date | 10 August 2006 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | Greg Lloyd ; Peter Zwart |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Hunt & Tamaiparea v Christchurch Yarns New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicants dismissed when caught by hidden camera clocking each other in - Whether disciplinary process fair - Applicant's argument situation may have been different if camera disclosed was persuasive - However, not procedurally unfair here - With one exception disciplinary investigation process fair and reasonable - Unfair second applicant not shown recording until after dismissal - Particularly disadvantageous as general manager felt trust further eroded by reluctance to accept blame or actual events - May have received different response if video shown - Whether fair and reasonable employer would have considered actions serious misconduct - Applicants claimed relatively minor infringement of rules done without intention of defrauding or undermining respondent's authority - House rules stated infringement to falsify company records including clocking another's time card - No conclusion applicants had not commenced work at correct time - No benefit to them except convenience - Falsification required intent to make record inaccurate so as to deceive - Should not have clocked each other in but fair and reasonable employer would not conclude behaviour serious misconduct in terms of falsification of company records - Evidence applicants did not think about actions - Authority did not find fair and reasonable employer would conclude deliberate and wilful refusal to follow instructions or conclude actions were serious misconduct that significantly undermined trust and confidence - No conduct fair and reasonable employer would regard as serious misconduct - Trust and confidence not undermined to significant degree to justify summary dismissal - Open to fair and reasonable employer to conclude misconduct - Collective agreement provided for oral warning for first offence - Fair and reasonable employer would not have summarily dismissed applicants - Dismissals unjustified - Remedies - Interim orders for reinstatement made but first applicant had obtained alternative employment - Authority did not agree with submission that as no longer seeking reinstatement compensation should be increased - Each applicant awarded $3,000 compensation - Actions errors of judgement and probably foolish but not serious misconduct and no financial consequence for respondent - Contributory conduct 20 percent - No good and reasonable reason for complete loss of trust and confidence in second applicant - Contributory conduct did not act as bar to reinstatement - Interim reinstatement order made permanent for second applicant - Length of service six years (first applicant) and eleven years (second applicant) - Textile workers |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (Quantum to be determined by parties less 20% contributory conduct) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000 reduced to $2,400)(each) ; Reinstatement (Second applicant) ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s125(2) |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson (2006) 3 NZELR 155;Hunt and Anor v Christchurch Yarns New Zealand Ltd unreported, H Doyle, 15 May 2006, CA 70/06 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 70a_06.pdf [pdf 101 KB] |