| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 300/08 |
| Hearing date | 4 Apr 2008 |
| Determination date | 21 August 2008 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | G Reitzema (in person) ; J Trotman |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Reitzema v ELP Payroll Holdings Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant accepted not truthful about some information provided to respondent’s managers – However, strongly denied respondent’s claim of evidence alleged provided regarding contaminated premises – Claimed dismissal unjustified in all circumstances – First issue whether applicant misled respondent about whether harmful contamination identified on work premises – Respondent wholesaler of party pills and at time of events pills containing benzylpiperazine (“BZP”) could be sold legally – Respondent also sold “leather cleaner” (“LC”) product where vapours of product inhaled – Applicant’s role involved managing packaging and despatch of products including LC – Applicant took time off work after experienced headaches and sickness claimed attributed to exposure from LC vapours – Applicant also claimed increased heat and lack of ventilation contributed to symptoms – Respondent authorised applicant to obtain professional testing of air quality of premises – Applicant told respondent testing done where swabs taken off walls and applicant’s skin – Respondent argued told by applicant, testers concluded swabs tested positive for isobutyl nitrate residue – Applicant argued did not claim premises contaminated – Applicant told respondent staff should stay out of premises until testing completed, when questioned by respondent how to proceed – Respondent arranged for premises to be relocated to alternative site – Respondent received verbal report from testers that no contamination – Respondent received final report from testers containing no reference to swab tests that applicant claimed were taken – Applicant at same time asked directors of respondent to instruct retail staff not to talk to customers about legal ban on party pills – Applicant told respondent that received information from two retail customers that had returned pills because told by staff pills being banned – Respondent concerned about applicant’s information as wanted to sell pills until law changed – Applicant admitted to Authority made up story of customer reports as concerned respondent needed to give specific instructions to staff concerning future sales of pills – Respondent had earlier reached own conclusion applicant not telling truth – Respondent sent applicant letter outlining dishonesty concerns – Respondent met with applicant to discuss concerns and also identified applicant had breached internet policy – Respondent contacted customers who denied returned pills because of staff comments – Applicant summarily dismissed – Authority found respondent entitled to reach conclusion misled by applicant – Applicant argued actions believed to be what was best for company – Authority found in light of conduct concerning customers more likely report to respondent regarding testers also overstated or misleading – Authority found respondent entitled to expect more of applicant in managerial position – Found misinformation given with intention to secure particular outcome – Found applicant’s actions struck deeply at trust and confidence expected – Found respondent entitled to reach serious misconduct conclusion – Authority found concern regarding internet use not central to decision to dismiss – Dismissal justified |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 300_08.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |