| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 70/08 |
| Hearing date | 11 Sep 2007 |
| Determination date | 03 March 2008 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | S Lance ; C Bennett |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Roberts v Converting Technology (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Respondent dismissed applicant for treating bonus payment as tax free, misuse of company taxi card, failure to pay creditors, and failure to manage another employees use of company petrol card – Applicant had long association with respondent’s owner (“R”) – Prior to dismissal parties had amicable relationship – Authority noted employment relationship operated on basis of loose and unwritten arrangements which suited both parties – Authority found R partly responsible for relaxed culture in workplace and applicant’s conduct considered in that context – No dispute bonus part of applicant’s income and taxable – R argued after 1998 stopped bonus paid net of tax and after 2000 made clear to applicant received bonus after tax – R warned by professional accountants to end tax free bonus payments – Authority found applicant knew from knowledge of business operations tax not being paid and that arrangement of passing off payments as expenses not legitimate even with R’s approval – Authority satisfied R fairly concluded applicant had no basis for honestly believing 1998 arrangement approved for use in later years – Found reasonable for respondent to regard applicant’s actions as serious misconduct – Found applicant paid herself more remuneration than authorised and as manager failed to ensure tax due properly accounted for in books – Authority also found applicant’s delay in paying creditors negligent – However, Authority noted R to share responsibility as allowed applicant considerable discretion to make payments without sufficient control and direction – Found R reasonably concluded applicant failed to supervise another employees use of company petrol card – Authority also found no excuse for applicant using company taxi card for personal use – Authority concluded culture of casual arrangements and lack of attention to financial accountability reason for current circumstances – Authority found trust and confidence required to maintain employment relationship lost on both sides – Dismissal justified – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed suspension unjustified – Authority found failure to consult with applicant prior to suspension unjustified – However, fault for situation giving rise to situation so serious applicant not entitled to remedies – Office manager |
| Abstract | Application granted (Disadvantage) ; Application dismissed (Unjustified Dismissal) ; Remedies reduced to 0 ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s65 |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] 3 NZELR 155 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 70_08.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |