| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 154/07 |
| Hearing date | 11 Apr 2007 |
| Determination date | 21 May 2007 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | S King ; M Broadbelt |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Edwards v Regent Training Centre Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Misconduct - Respondent questioned several of applicant's financial transactions - Petty cash and bank account rules not followed - Wages being paid to staff member (RC") not on payroll - Applicant claimed office manager overworked but considered director unlikely to authorise employment of another staff member - Engaged RC anyway and submitted invoices for wages instead of adding her to payroll - Told respondent RC short-term casual to assist office manager - Weak attempt to justify engagement - PAYE and employment obligations not met - Director required RC's employment to end - Applicant created back-dated letter for RC to sign, stating casual contractor responsible for own tax despite express refusal to be contractor when engaged - RC did not sign letter and passed it to respondent - Even if had established RC a contractor, unlikely letter would have assisted with applicant's circumvention of restriction on engaging staff - Behaviour not good faith - Respondent approached private investigator to make independent enquiries about RC, petty cash shortfall and further concern applicant frequently absent from work - Led to disciplinary proceedings - Meeting adjourned when applicant declined to comment until further detail provided - During adjournment director concluded no longer wanted applicant in workplace unsupervised - Applicant suspended on fully pay - Did not accept applicant's assertion unaware of nature of issues and decided on facts "as known" no option but to dismiss - Decision made without applicant responding to issues in context of disciplinary proceedings - Authority did not accept applicant already knew nature of all allegations, entitled to require more details - Did not refuse to respond at all - Respondent not entitled to consider facts already "known" - Dismissing applicant without putting detail of concerns to him and obtaining response unjustified - Dismissal unjustified - Applicant claimed left new employment because of stress related to dismissal - Authority not prepared to accept bare assertion - Causal link between grievance and lost remuneration weakened - But for shortcomings in disciplinary process, justified dismissal could have resulted - Lost wages limited to notice period - Manager" |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($4,230.77) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Holiday pay ($338.36) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s86(1) |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 154_07.pdf [pdf 60 KB] |