| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 141/06 |
| Hearing date | 12 Jul 2006 |
| Determination date | 18 September 2006 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | P Brown ; M Guest |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Davis v Harbour Inn Fisheries Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Whether dismissed or resigned - Applicant claimed dismissed for alleged theft of stock - Dispute over exchange that led to termination - Best evidence of what occurred was statement given to police soon after - Applicant dismissed - Fair and reasonable employer would have given applicant better opportunity to explain or mitigate - Director suspected applicant of taking fish for sometime - Suspicion never raised with applicant - Director had organised for representative to be present when applicant dismissed - Director and partners made up mind about applicant's culpability before exchange that led to termination - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Authority accepted fish missing - In circumstances only applicant could be responsible - Contributory conduct 100 percent - Length of service one year two months - Fish filleter |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever New Zealand Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;Wellington, Taranaki and Marlborough Clerical Etc IUOW v Greenwich (t/a Greenwich and Associates Employment Agency and Complete Fitness Centre) [1983] ACJ 965 ; NZ |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 141_06.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |