| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 138/08 |
| Hearing date | 9 Sep 2008 |
| Determination date | 18 September 2008 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | N Scott (in person) ; D Gorrie |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Scott v Gorrie Fuels (SI) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed part way through notice period suspended without pay and then dismissed for serious misconduct – Applicant had dispute with customer over whether change should be provided when payment made by vouchers – Applicant told customer could not provide change – Applicant claimed customer started yelling and banging on counter, and when did not relent provided change – Applicant accepted as customer left shop made abusive comment – Respondent called applicant to meeting and asked questions about incident – Applicant claimed inferred from questioning respondent concerned applicant physically intimidated customer – Authority found customer’s written complaint did not suggest physical intimidation – Applicant sought copy of employment agreement (“EA”), copy of complaint, and copy of video footage – Respondent refused to provide items – Respondent provided applicant identical unsigned EA – Applicant suspended without pay until serious misconduct investigation completed – Respondent told applicant would keep last weeks wages if applicant left premises that day – Applicant left premises and arranged time for another meeting – Respondent refused to show applicant video footage and written complaint at meeting – Respondent dismissed for serious misconduct – Respondent refused to pay applicant final pay – Authority found situation did not require urgent action – Found applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged when suspended without pay and opportunity to comment on suspension – Authority found no reasonable employer would have proceeded to dismiss employee without first providing copy of complaint and opportunity to match complaint against security footage – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Authority found applicant’s initial refusal to give change because of criticism from customer and abuse of customer escalated conflict – 50 percent reduction of remedies for contributory conduct – Authority found $4,000 compensation appropriate for distress caused by both dismissal and suspension – Authority found applicant entitled to $615 reimbursement of lost wages – ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY – Authority rejected respondent’s argument thought permitted to retain pay because applicant did not work out notice period – Authority found respondent to pay applicant $585 arrears of wages and holiday pay – Service station shop worker |
| Result | Applications granted (Disadvantage) (Dismissal) ; Arrears of wages and holiday pay ($585.11) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($615.25 reduced to $307.63) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000 reduced to $2,000) ; Interest (9%) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s123(1)(b);ERA s128(2) |
| Cases Cited | Salt v Fell [2006] ERNZ 449 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 138_08.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |