| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 117/06 |
| Hearing date | 20 Jun 2006 |
| Determination date | 06 September 2006 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | G Dewar ; A Rapley |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Herridge v The Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Summary dismissal - Applicant dismissed after voluntarily admitted accessing family member's tax records in breach of code of conduct - Accepted behaviour amounted to serious misconduct but contended significant disparity of treatment - Authority found it difficult, if not impossible, to conclude disparity occurred - Applicant admitted serious misconduct - Knew at time actions wrong and had led to dismissal - Alternatively, Authority satisfied dismissal justified notwithstanding disparity for which there was no adequate explanation - Applicant aware of code of conduct - Provision of significantly less comparative evidence than in Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan (cited below) did not disadvantage applicant or prevent Authority determining matter - Even if unjustified dismissal, likely contributory conduct would be 100 percent - Dismissal justified - Length of service 10 years 5 months |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan [2005] 1 ERNZ 767 (CA);Samu v Air New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 ERNZ 636;W & H Newspapers Limited v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 117_06.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |