| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 76/09 |
| Hearing date | 6 Oct 2008 |
| Determination date | 10 March 2009 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | J Minto ; L Turner |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Latunipulu v Veda Advantage (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Serious misconduct – Respondent a credit reporting agency that employed applicant – Baycorp (“B”) a client of respondent – Previously B and respondent part of same company – Applicant emailed two of B’s employees asking whether paid debt records could be removed from personal file as having difficulty obtaining first home loan – B employee contacted applicant sought references of defaults but stated unable to request default records be removed as did not comply with B’s policy with respondent – B’s management informed respondent of correspondence – Applicant claimed emails merely asked procedure through B and not request for instant removal of defaults – Respondent’s manager (“S”) provided applicant with relevant documents and told disciplinary meeting would be next day – Next day, applicant produced resignation letter – Applicant withdrew resignation when S informed unable to accept resignation – After disciplinary meeting applicant summarily dismissed – Authority found only discernable allegation was applicant requested default records removed from file – Found applicant made no attempt to interfere with computer system directly – Respondent argued applicant attempted to manipulate file in way knew was illegitimate – Authority concluded applicant only guilty of making request – Found respondent’s justification for dismissal, that was direct interference, did not occur in fact – Found applicant’s request transparent, made enquiries, and invited defaults be deleted – Authority did not consider applicant’s request repudiatory conduct – Severe consequence of summary dismissal not appropriate – No harm to respondent – Respondent erred by elevating potential harm to actual harm – Summary dismissal unjustified – Remedies – No contributory conduct – Authority found given hurt and humiliation suffered and ten years service $8000 compensation appropriate – Call centre customer services representative |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (3 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Click Clack International Ltd v James [1994] 1 ERNZ 15;North Island Wholesale Groceries Ltd v Hewin [1992] 2 NZILR 176;Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil NZ Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 76_09.pdf [pdf 41 KB] |