| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 11/09 |
| Hearing date | 26 Jun 2008 |
| Determination date | 30 January 2009 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | A Marsh ; D Beck |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Burrowes v Electronics Boutique Australia PTY Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustified suspension and delay in return to workplace caused disadvantage – Applicant claimed subsequently constructively dismissed - Applicant gave work cash card PIN to colleague (“W”) for work convenience purposes – W used code to steal – Respondent asked whether applicant knew about missing stock – Applicant replied all staff knew each others’ code – Respondent suspended applicant on pay for transactions made under applicant’s code – No notice and no opportunity to discuss and seek advice given – W admitted to thefts one month later - Applicant advised of admission but suspension not lifted – Applicant contacted respondent regarding return but received no reply - Suspension lifted one week later and applicant advised of returned to work but at different store - Respondent claimed transfer to rectify gaps in applicant’s training – Applicant claimed transfer a demotion because applicant was not restored to previous position - Applicant obtained sick leave for depression – Applicant sent emails to respondent alleging demotion and inappropriate comments being made towards applicant - No response – Applicant claimed concerns not addressed and resigned – Meeting to find resolution held one month later - Authority found suspension procedurally unjustified – Found no investigation or opportunity for response given – Found undue delays in returning applicant to workplace caused disadvantage – Disadvantage unjustified – Authority found applicant entitled to prompt and problem-free return to work – Found undue delay in returning applicant to workplace breached duty - Found failure to prepare all concerned for applicant’s return breached duty – Found respondent entitled to transfer applicant but needed to provide explanation or consultation – Found lack of explanation led applicant to feel humiliated - Found no investigation into applicant’s allegations breached duty – Found efforts to find resolution too late – Found breach of duty sufficiently serious for resignation to be reasonably foreseeable - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – 20 percent contributory conduct as applicant’s disclosure of code lead to thefts – $6,500 global compensation for both grievances appropriate as medical condition serious and dismissal contributed to illness - Reimbursement of 17 weeks lost wages - Retail Assistant |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($1603.27) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,500 reduced to $5,200) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s124;ERA s128(3) |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 11_09.pdf [pdf 43 KB] |