| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 11/08 |
| Hearing date | 8 Jan 2008 |
| Determination date | 28 January 2008 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | R Foitzik ; M Shaw |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Graham (formerly Bramley) v M P J Holdings Ltd t/a The Pinetree Arms |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Misconduct - Respondent dismissed applicant for allegedly consuming its product without authorisation and without paying for it - Employment relationship characterised by some historical misconduct, together with serious problems associated with alcohol consumption, that were treated leniently by respondent - Respondent concerned with stock shrinkage and that no sales rung up on till during two hour period bar contained customers - Taking into account previous warning for similar behaviour, respondent dismissed applicant - Clear dismissal unjustified on procedural grounds - Applicant not told reason for disciplinary meeting or given sufficient time during meeting to refute allegations - Respondent accepted should have given applicant opportunity to compose herself during meeting - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Sufficient level of proof applicant guilty of serious misconduct - Dismissal inevitable - Contributory conduct 100 percent - Bar manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Ark Aviation v Newton (CA) [2001] 1 ERNZ 133;Kostic v Dodd & Milligan t/a Allan Milligan Cars and/or Motorworld Systems Ltd unreported, Couch J, 11 July 2007, CC 14/07;NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever New Zealand Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;Paewhenua v. Manukau City Council unreported, Travis J, 7 August 1997,;AEC86/97;White v Auckland District Health Board [2007] 1 ERNZ 66 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 11_08.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |