Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 84/08
Hearing date 24 Oct 2007
Determination date 11 March 2008
Member A Dumbleton
Representation S Mitchell ; J Armstrong
Location Auckland
Parties Christiansen v Soar Printing Company Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant downloaded Photoshop software from respondent’s computer onto personal laptop – Caused damage to respondent’s computer – No authorisation to download software, and actions illegal as programme registered to respondent – Respondent’s general manager (“D”) discovered what happened and gave letter of notice of disciplinary meeting – Letter said would assume meeting time suited applicant unless applicant contacted D to reschedule – In discussions before meeting, applicant’s manager (“H”) expressed view that respondent would treat action seriously but would only result in warning – Applicant took sick leave – Applicant attempted to defer meeting as unwell - D said would rather proceed so applicant agreed – At conclusion of meeting, D arranged further meeting to present conclusions – At second meeting, applicant silent when D asked to explain why took copy of Photoshop when knew it was illegal – D terminated employment, effective immediately – Authority found unfair and unreasonable for D not to accede to applicant’s request for adjournment of disciplinary meeting when applicant unwell – Declining request was contrary to letter stating to contact D if wished to reschedule – Authority found while H made no promise that meeting would result in warning only, expression of opinion played part in applicant’s decision to proceed with meeting when unwell and without support person – Found fair and reasonable employer would not have proceeded with scheduled disciplinary meeting when employee given reason to believe dismissal unlikely and therefore not persisted in seeking adjournment despite sickness, and when employer encouraged employee to continue with scheduled date when previously implied date could be changed on request - Dismissal unjustified – Authority found applicant gave no excuse for actions to respondent or Authority – Authority concluded actions breached house rules, amounted to serious misconduct and warranted dismissal - Applicant found new employment one week after dismissal – Found applicant’s fault or blame contributed so overwhelmingly that finding of 100 percent contributory conduct appropriate – No remedies awarded
Result Application granted ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A
Cases Cited Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] 3 NZLR 155
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: aa 84_08.pdf [pdf 29 KB]