| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 76B/08 |
| Determination date | 03 November 2008 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | K Stringleman ; B Fletcher |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Joseph v Maataa Waka Ki Te Tau Ihu Trust |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Determination of remedies for unjustified dismissal grievance – Applicant sought reinstatement, reimbursement of lost wages and compensation - Authority reserved remedies because respondent argued new information received about applicant following dismissal which impacted on remedies – Member of public (“R”) advised respondent applicant had offered to write off infringement in exchange for deer – Applicant denied allegations – R unable to give evidence – Authority found could take into account subsequently discovered misconduct of truly significant nature when determining remedies – Found law enforcement officer attempting to obtain bribe was serious allegation and could amount to criminal offence punishable by imprisonment – Found in order to consider subsequently discovered conduct, Authority must be satisfied conduct occurred – Found given seriousness of allegation, conduct not proven on balance of probabilities – Authority declined to consider R’s allegation made after applicant’s dismissal in determining remedies – In substantive determination, Authority found applicant’s conduct amounted to serious misconduct and dismissal substantively justified but lacked procedural fairness – Authority found strong probability and real likelihood that with fair process, dismissal would have been justified – Authority found applicant’s actions breached trust and confidence not undertaken in good faith, and destructive of continued working relationships between co-worker, applicant and respondent – Found actions amounted to contributory conduct – Found reinstatement not practicable as applicant’s actions caused significant loss of confidence – Found applicant only entitled to four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice, which applicant already received – Found applicant long serving senior employee entitled to fair process and more dignified exit than was afforded – Small compensation award of $2,000 appropriate - Animal control officer |
| Result | Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s123 |
| Cases Cited | Salt v Fell [2008] NZCA 128;Waitakere City Council v Ioane [2004] 2 ERNZ 194 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 76b_08.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |