| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 139/06 |
| Hearing date | 17 Aug 2006 |
| Determination date | 28 August 2006 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | M Henderson ; N Rout |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Stevens v Williams t/a Williams & Co |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious Misconduct - Summary Dismissal - Applicant dismissed for lying - Respondent relied on applicant's positive assurance cheques deposited - Cheques not deposited - Authority preferred respondent's recollection of events and accepted misled by applicant - Whether process fair and reasonable - Nothing improper about meeting where applicant provided assurance deposits made - Procedure adopted on day of dismissal so flawed resulting dismissal unsafe - Applicant summoned to meeting without notice and without opportunity to obtain representation - Breach of employment agreement that entitled applicant to support person - Clear power imbalance when young employee in first serious employment questioned by three senior representatives of employer - Authority did not accept different procedure would not have enabled applicant to deal more appropriately with allegation - Procedurally unfair - Dismissal predated enactment of s103A Employment Relations Act 2000 - Respondent's decision harsh but substantially justified - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Contributory conduct 60 percent - Length of service not specified - Office junior/receptionist |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($6,264 reduced to $2,505.60) ; Compensation ($3,000 reduced to $1,200) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 483;Wellington Road Transport etc IUOW v Fletcher Construction Co Ltd [1983] ACJ 653 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 139_06.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |