| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 232/07 |
| Hearing date | 5 Jul 2007 |
| Determination date | 03 August 2007 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | P Swarbrick ; no appearance |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Panel Holdings Ltd v Paki |
| Summary | BREACH OF CONTRACT – No appearance by respondent – Medial certificate treated as de facto application for adjournment by Authority but further information not provided – Attempt to frustrate process - Applicant alleged respondent breached employment agreement by giving inadequate notice, entering into unauthorised transactions and altering or removing company documents - Respondent had sole charge of administrative and accounting processes – Anomalies came to applicant’s attention – Respondent took sick leave but continued to access accounting system – Entered premises and replaced employment agreement with one containing more favourable terms – Resigned without returning to work, but continued to access company bank account via internet – Audit uncovered $32,000 of unauthorised expenditure, including purchases from Trade Me and personal bills – Attempts to contact respondent unsuccessful – Resignation letter gave notice “per the terms of my contract, effective today” – “Effective today” meant notice began from that date, notice not inadequate – Breached employment agreement by making unauthorised payments for own benefit, and removing and altering documents – Also falsified company records to disguise transactions and increase leave entitlement – Respondent to reimburse applicant – PEANTLY- Respondent’s actions unlawful and punitive action deserved – Behaviour ongoing over lengthy period of time - $5,000 penalty appropriate for each of three breaches – Respondent had raised constructive dismissal claim but failed to supply amended statement of problem - Counterclaim dismissed – Office manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Damages ($32,813.68) ; Penalty ($15,000) ($7,500 payable to Crown, $7,500 payable to applicant) ; Counterclaim dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Breach of Contract |
| Cases Cited | Canterbury Hotel etc IUOW v University of Canterbury Students Assn Inc [1990] 3 NZILR 471;Munro v Village Care New Plymouth Ltd (T/A Highlands Lodge) [2004] 2 ERNZ 40;NZ Timber Industry IOUW v Waimate Timber Co Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 985;Prins v Tirohanga Group Ltd [2006] 1 ERNZ 321;Xu v McIntosh [2004] 2 ERNZ 448 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 232_07.pdf [pdf 55 KB] |