| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 140/06 |
| Hearing date | 1 Aug 2006 |
| Determination date | 15 September 2006 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | T Wilton ; S Langton |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Williams v The Supply Chain Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Summary dismissal - Covert video camera filmed applicant accepting kneepad from another employee - Applicant aware actions breached company rules but did not accept intended to steal property - Claimed discarded kneepad at workplace but respondent unable to recover it - Investigation full, fair, and met requirements in collective employment agreement - Fair and reasonable employer would consider conduct amounted to unauthorised possession of company property and serious misconduct - Respondent considered applicant's long service, but it also counted against him as considered he knew rules, was looked up to by peers and should have stopped incident rather than contributed to it - Open to fair and reasonable employer to consider length of service in this way - Respondent also considered need to consistently apply rules and did not want to create precedent that unauthorised possession of property would result only in warning - Present case distinguished from Teao v Stormonts Bakeries Co Ltd (cited below) - Dismissal justified - COSTS - Length of investigation meeting less than one day - Appropriate to award $1,200 costs to respondent - Length of service 17 years - Warehouse operator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs in favour of respondent ($1,200) |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson (2006) 3 NZELR 155;Teao v Stormonts Bakeries Co Ltd unreported, Colgan J, 19 December 1995, AEC 133/95;Wellington Road Transport Union of Workers v Fletcher Constructions Co Limited [1982] ACJ 663 ; (1982) ERNZ Sel Cas 10 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 140_06.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |