| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 9/08 |
| Hearing date | 19 Nov 2007 |
| Determination date | 15 January 2008 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | H White ; D France |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Craig v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Manager supplied with new mobile phone – Applicant started using phone after manager reverted to old phone – Without authority applicant allocated personal number to phone – Claimed phone belonged to third party, not respondent – Respondent concluded applicant’s actions amounted to theft – Applicant claimed respondent not justified in viewing actions as theft – Also claimed respondent did not consider whether actions product of innocent mistake rather than deliberate intention to dishonestly take – Applicant also suggested more convenient for respondent to dismiss rather than continue restructuring negotiations – Implied term of agreement that employee will not use employer’s property for own purposes without permission – Term included property controlled and owned by employer – Applicant knew property controlled by respondent as part of own duties to administer control of phones – Full and fair inquiry conducted – Reasonable for respondent to conclude applicant deliberately set out to breach rule – No substantial grounds for applicant to conclude dismissal motivated by restructuring issues – Dismissal justified – Receptionist |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] 3 NZELR 155;Sherwood v Woolworths NZ ltd [2002] 2 ERNZ 508;Toll New Zealand Consolidated Limited v Rowe unreported, Travis BS, 9 December 2007, AC 39/07 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 9_08.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |