| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 45/08 |
| Hearing date | 16 Jan 2008 - 18 Jan 2008 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 14 February 2008 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | C Hatlauf-Coles, B Edwards ; D France |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Barton v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Respondent alleged applicant breached of code of conduct when took steps to arrange discounted fares for personal associates outside respondent’s policy – Applicant accepted attempted to purchase ticket but claimed not aware what rules applied – Applicant booked flight for partner outside policy with 75 percent discount and large loss to respondent – Co-worker (“C”) authorised premium seating for ticket, also in breach of code – Authority accepted respondent’s assertion that applicant knew or ought to have known of policy –Found applicant untruthful towards respondent and Authority – Authority found inference to be drawn from fact applicant went to C for approval rather than manager was that applicant knew was outside policy – Found C’s approval did not legitimise applicant’s actions – Found application’s attempts to purchase discounted airfare were for personal gain and improper benefit of another party – Authority found respondent reasonably concluded that applicant’s assertion that ignorant of policy was not credible – Respondent also argued applicant misled manager – When applicant discussed ticket with manager, applicant did not reveal until questioned that ticket was for partner - Authority found applicant did not lie to manager, but was not open and forthcoming in providing all relevant information – Found respondent justified in concluding applicant attempted to mislead manager – After discovering breach of policy, manager offered applicant small discount on ticket – Applicant instead organised cheaper ticket through different co-worker – Authority found although arranged ticket within policy, applicant acted without manager’s knowledge and contrary to instructions – Respondent argued this confirmed applicant not open and honest - During disciplinary investigation, respondent discovered earlier discounted travel booked for friend outside policy and without approval from manager – Respondent discovered email from friend asking if would be able to obtain discounted fares in future – Authority found respondent justified in concluding applicant had created expectation would provide discounted airfares – Disciplinary investigation concluded with dismissal – Applicant claimed decision maker failed to consult superiors before dismissal – Authority found proper consultation occurred – Dismissal procedurally justified – Applicant argued disparity of treatment as C received final warning – Authority did not accept respondent’s argument that disparate treatment warranted by fact C had no personal gain and different manager determined outcome of disciplinary investigation – However, found conduct distinguishable as applicant engaged in series of actions breaching policy, including misleading respondent’s investigation – Found respondent justified in concluding trust remained in C but irrevocably broken with applicant – Authority concluded applicant’s behaviour constituted serious misconduct destructive of trust and confidence – Dismissal justified - Airline group sales co-ordinator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan [2005] 1 ERNZ 767 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 45_08.pdf [pdf 56 KB] |