| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct - Applicant CEO of respondent – Motion of no-confidence in applicant carried – Subsequently dismissed for failing to inform respondent of IRD statutory demand and failing to keep it advised as to extent of its indebtedness to IRD – Applicant attended board meeting believing was to discuss retirement of debt, had no knowledge no-confidence vote was to be put and if carried, he would be dismissed – Applicant had obligation to report fully on major issues facing respondent, including extent of debt owed to IRD and existence of statutory demand – Applicant took steps to “cover up” extent of debt by not itemising financial reports, and by asking IRD not to detail quantum of debt in communications to respondent – Alleged applicant involved in business enterprises in conflict of interest with CEO role - On preponderance of evidence, Board aware of applicant's involvement in business enterprises and condoned it - Could have directed him to cease or refrain from activities - Effect of statutory demand very serious, as was failure to accurately report on debt - Respondent correct in concluding omissions and actions amounted to serious misconduct and destructive of trust and confidence – Having passed vote of no confidence, contingent on Board to investigate and follow contractual obligations - Had Board followed fair and reasonable process, likely applicant would have been dismissed – Fair and reasonable employer would have put its information to applicant, and provided opportunity to seek representation and explain - Unjustified dismissal – Remedies - Due to significant contribution entitled to contribution to costs, but no other remedy – Length of service four years one month - Chief executive officer |