| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 154/06 |
| Hearing date | 20 Sep 2006 |
| Determination date | 06 November 2006 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | P Drummond ; E Hartdegen |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Field v AB Equipment Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant visited client site to complete job on way home from work - Filled out time sheet at later date - Later involved in verbal altercation with manager - Applicant asked to attend disciplinary meeting to discuss alleged falsification of timesheets, and aggressive and discourteous behaviour - Not given details of allegations until meeting - Meeting primarily about timesheet and parties discussed gate diary obtained from client - Adjourned so respondent could make further enquiries - Respondent verbally confirmed accuracy of gate diary, but conceded this did not prove veracity - Applicant dismissed without being given opportunity to comment on outcome of further enquiries - Applicant told decision reached but not told what it was - Asked if had anything else to say, then dismissed - Since dismissal time required at client site decreased - Company suspected applicant claimed more time than worked, but allegation not raised at time of dismissal - Fair and reasonable employer would not have come to honestly held belief applicant falsified timesheet when it relied upon word of mouth that gate diary accurate and conceded advice received did not prove veracity of accuracy of gate diary - Respondent's conclusion exposed as inadequate by evidence of gatekeepers who remembered applicant's visit - Credibility issue over what said to respondent at time - Respondent unreasonably concluded applicant lied - Investigation appeared flawed and wholly inadequate - Unsubstantiated allegations about applicant putting in more time at site than necessary did not assist defence - Respondent's conclusion further affected by not giving applicant detail of allegation in advance when probable he could have been confused because frequently attended site - Also manner in which information obtained left it exposed to latter conflict over what said - On their own, allegations regarding behaviour did not amount to serious misconduct - Seriousness of allegations required respondent to prove them with sufficiently high degree of proof that serious misconduct occurred - Unjustified dismissal - Remedies - Claim for superannuation reserved as requested - Length of service not specified - Forklift technician |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($18,929.86) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($12,000) ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Limited v Hudson unreported, Shaw J, 30 May 2006, AC 30/06;Honda NZ Ltd v NZ (with exceptions) Shipwrights etc Union [1990] 3 NZILR 23 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 154_06.pdf [pdf 48 KB] |