| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 300/06 |
| Hearing date | 29 May 2006 |
| Determination date | 20 September 2006 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | C Tennet ; P Swarbrick |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Berquist v The Warehouse Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant had parental leave approved to commence in January 2005 – By November 2004 applicant finding it difficult to stand for long hours – Alleged respondent promised to pay out her annual holiday pay whilst allowing her to work in alternative position but reneged on promise and forced her to take seven weeks annual leave – While on parental leave, applicant shopped at respondent's store with friend – Friend purchased jewellery and applicant used staff discount card for purchase – Manager became aware of transaction and asked applicant to come into store for meeting – At meeting allegations were set out – Applicant wished to have disciplinary meeting immediately following, but respondent said she should have time to get support person and prepare for meeting – Applicant avoided all attempts at further meetings and refused to meet with respondent, telling manager to make decision on matter – Investigation as far as it went was thorough and fair – Manager gave full explanation to applicant as to specific allegations against her – If employee refuses to take up opportunity to provide explanation (as in present case), open to employer to make decision on disciplinary action on basis of information before it, providing elements of investigation to that point were thorough and fair - At investigation meeting applicant alleged she had given money to her friend with which to make purchase – However, this information was not available to respondent before decision to dismiss made – Applicant’s actions were destructive of trust reposed in her as loss prevention officer – Decision to dismiss fair - Credibility finding in favour of respondent’s witnesses - Unjustified disadvantage claim out of time - In any event, no agreement that applicant would work in new position or that she would receive lump sum payment of holiday pay – Not forced to take annual leave – Applications dismissed - Length of service at Papamoa branch 14 months (had previously been employed part time at another store) – Loss prevention officer |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] 1 ERNZ 415;Auckland Chemical Paint etc IUOW v Healtheries of NZ Ltd [1990] 2 NZILR 701;Northern Club, Auckland v Northern Hotel IUOW [1989] 1 NZILR 764;Northern Hotel etc Union v Maintenance Free World (NZ) ltd [1989] 3 NZILR 1;Pallet Supplies Company Ltd v Yates [1998] 1 ERNZ 532 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 300_06.pdf [pdf 55 KB] |