| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 232/08 |
| Hearing date | 11 Mar 2008 : 1 May 2008 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 04 July 2008 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | D Jacobson ; R Towner |
| Location | Tauranga |
| Parties | Stevens v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Summary dismissal for serious misconduct – Senior manager (“B”) sent high importance email to all sales staff, including applicant, stating respondent to increase prices to customers - Applicant attended training session on managing price increase implementation with customers – B resent previous email, attaching timeline of proposed actions – Timeline stated sales staff to advise customers of price increase and monitor responses – Applicant contacted manager (“D”), who said client account (“S”) to be handled at local level – Applicant understood S’s answer to mean could negotiate increase with S – Applicant negotiated unwritten agreement with S to increase prices by 2 percent - Applicant informed D and remaining sales staff that negotiated deal of around 3 percent with S - D expressed approval and reported deal to B - B emailed all sales managers, including D, stating sales staff could not negotiate price increase of less than 5.5 percent without sign off from manager – D did not forward B’s email to applicant until day before dismissal – D invited applicant to disciplinary meeting for failing to comply with instruction of manager, resulting in serious financial consequences – Applicant confused at disciplinary action and contacted colleague (“R”), who confirmed applicant’s theory of authority for negotiation – Minutes of disciplinary meeting showed applicant remorseful and apologetic – Authority found D’s denial to management in disciplinary meeting that previously expressed approval for deal untruthful – Applicant dismissed by letter stating grossly negligent – Authority noted applicant consistent that when negotiated price increase with S, believed was acting in accordance with training – Authority found respondent made no effort to rule out whether applicant may have misunderstood instructions – Authority noted D expressed approval for deal, showing D considered applicant to be acting within guidelines - Authority found emails ambiguous about whether sales staff entitled to negotiate with S – However, found timeline made clear that only authorised to raise prospect of sales increase and monitor client reaction – Found emails and training stressed importance of achieving price increase as being critical to respondent – Authority found that applicant should have ignored emails at own peril since previously issued with expired warnings for not following company procedures – Found respondent’s focus in disciplinary investigation on potential consequences of negotiated deal with S was overstated – Respondent unaware at time of dismissal whether applicant’s deal would impact on other industries – Authority noted respondent did not contact S to advise that applicant negotiated outside authority – B gave evidence that S considered deal not binding – Found fair and reasonable employer would have taken ambiguity of emails into account, especially due to interpretation of B and R of emails, applicant’s apologies at disciplinary meeting and fact S did not consider deal enforceable – Fair and reasonable employer would not have dismissed applicant – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – No contributory conduct – Applicant 64 years old when dismissed, and eligible for guaranteed retirement income in 8 months – Authority accepted difficult to secure alternative employment given applicant’s age – Applicant found temporary alternative work at lesser pay – Respondent to reimburse lost wages calculated at difference between lost earnings from respondent until retirement date and earnings from alternative employment – Respondent to reimburse loss of employer contributions to superannuation scheme until retirement date – Respondent to reimburse loss of company payments to health premiums until retirement date – Respondent to reimburse loss of use of company car for 8 month period until retirement date – Applicant claimed embarrassed to advise family, friends and clients that dismissed after 20 years employment – Authority found hurt and humiliation exacerbated as no opportunity to farewell colleagues after long employment – Authority took length of service and age of applicant into account - Compensation of $15,000 appropriate - Sales Representative and Account Manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($10,153) ; Loss of benefit ($3,768)(contributions to superannuation) ($379)(contributions to health premiums) ($10,000)(use of company vehicle) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($15,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Air NZ Ltd v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415;Angel v Fonterra Co-operative [2006] ERNZ 1080;Makatoa v Restaurant Brands (NZ) Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 311 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 232_08.pdf [pdf 55 KB] |