| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 123/07 |
| Hearing date | 31 Jul 2007 |
| Determination date | 23 October 2007 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | M Thomas ; G Walker |
| Location | Invercargill |
| Parties | Murray v Lumsden Accommodation Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Respondent viewed security camera footage from bar – Believed applicant gave away drinks – Also showed her returning after hours with male customer and giving him company shirt – Handed applicant suspension letter when she returned from leave – Fair and reasonable employer, knowing applicant just returned from holiday and unaware of respondent’s concerns, would have discussed justification for suspension with her – Suspension substantively justified, but manner applicant advised of it unjustified – Unjustified disadvantage – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Misconduct - After viewing video, applicant accepted some drinks not put through till – Said tired and apologised - Till tapes not provided to applicant – Not enough for respondent to say information never requested – Till tapes and security footage no longer available – Applicant not asked whether friendly with customer she gave drinks and shirt to – Claimed left note saying would pay for shirt but none found - Respondent required to reach conclusion as to whether not charging deliberate or oversight, not simply conclude applicant gave away items – Failure to follow disciplinary procedures in employment agreement – Applicant not given opportunity to comment on respondent’s conclusion or decision to dismiss – Inadequacy of investigation meant fair and reasonable employer would, at time of dismissal, have concluded misconduct and could have given warning, not serious misconduct and summary dismissal – Unjustified dismissal – Remedies – Applicant had also advised bar tab from another hotel should be sent to respondent – Irregular and no authorisation for this – Fair and reasonable employer would have warned applicant about conduct – Very real possibility employment would not have continued beyond trial period – Lost wages limited to remainder of trial period – Contributory conduct 60 percent - Manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,462.98 reduced to $985.20) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($400)(Disadvantage) ; ($9,000 reduced to $3,600)(Dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)c;ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415;Angel & Anor v Fonterra Co-operative Group [2006] ERNZ 1080;Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan [2005] 1 ERNZ 767;(CA);Graham v Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [2005] 1 ERNZ 587;Honda NZ Ltd v NZ (with exceptions) Shipwrights etc Union [1990] 3 NZILR 23;Schofield Airport Gateway Hotel Ltd v Clarke [1998] 3 ERNZ 629;Tawhiwhirangi v Attorney-General in respect of Chief Executive, Department of;Justice [1993] 2 ERNZ 546 |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 123_07.pdf [pdf 63 KB] |