| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 20/01 |
| Determination date | 22 March 2001 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | Shemely ; Gibson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Shemely v Gibson t/a Chagall Hair Design |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Theft - Missing stock - Private investigator employed - Security camera set up - Concluded applicant was involved - Meeting carried out like criminal investigation not disciplinary meeting - Admitted removing company product - Whether common practice to take stock home - Security tapes not shown to applicant - No knowledge of reason for meeting - Young employee should have been encouraged to have representation - Nature of allegations and possible consequences not conveyed - Procedurally unjustified - Reinstatement not appropriate - Contributory conduct reduced remedies to nil - Hairdressing junior |
| Result | Application granted ; Contributory conduct reduced remedies to nil ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Sutherland [1993] 2 ERNZ 10;Airline Stewards & Hostesses of NZ IUOW v Air NZ Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 584 ; [1990] 3 NZLR 549;NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |