| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 150/08 |
| Hearing date | 2 Oct 2008 |
| Determination date | 07 October 2008 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | S McRae ; no appearance |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Reid v Burgats Enterprises Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – No appearance by respondent - Applicant claimed suffered unjustified disadvantage when meeting had requested to discuss written warning became formal disciplinary meeting where dismissed – Written warning referred to earlier verbal warning - Authority found insufficient evidence of verbal warning – Found verbal warning not properly effected and therefore of no effect – Authority found applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged when received written warning – Found no evidence of disadvantage and not improper to warn employee of matters of concern – Authority rejected applicant’s argument respondent took proposal for meeting and turned it into disciplinary meeting – Authority found respondent clearly stated meeting would be disciplinary, applicant could bring representative and future employment could be effected – Following dismissal applicant charged with theft – Applicant claimed respondent initiated criminal proceedings in retaliation for personal grievance claim – Claimed respondent attempted to force applicant to drop personal grievance in exchange for withdrawal of theft charges – Authority not persuaded respondent acted inappropriately - No unjustified disadvantage - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Authority found issue whether applicant given proper hearing at disciplinary meeting - Authority found respondent erred in conclusion reached on timekeeping issue – Found were serious factual differences between parties not adequately resolved at meeting – Found fair and reasonable employer would have inquired further, or at least assessed applicant’s information more carefully – Authority found respondent erred in conclusion on whether applicant improperly removed product from respondent and did not account for it – Found significant factual differences between parties as to number of garments, amount of money owed and whether anything improper in applicant’s actions – Authority found as some payments made for goods taken home on appro and payments acknowledged by respondent difficult for respondent to claim applicant behaved improperly – Found if respondent found repayment regime unsatisfactory should have dealt with matter – Found no evidence of theft by applicant – Dismissal unjustified - Remedies – Authority found applicant’s behaviour in respect to absence from workplace not contributing factor – Authority found applicant’s actions in making no attempt to pay for clothes taken home on appro contributed to situation giving rise to grievance – Found arguable that if applicant more forthright in undertaking payment regime and more measured in taking on debt, that aspect of basis for dismissal might have disappeared - Finding of 25 percent contributory conduct – Applicant on sickness benefit since dismissal – No award for reimbursement of lost wages – Authority found $3,000 compensation appropriate - COSTS – partially successful personal grievance – Length of investigation meeting not specified – Authority found applicant entitled to $750 contribution to costs – Telemarketer |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified dismissal) ; Application dismissed (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000 reduced to $3,000) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($750) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 150_08.pdf [pdf 40 KB] |