Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 83/09
Hearing date 4 Feb 2009
Determination date 23 March 2009
Member L Robinson
Representation L Darroch ; J Phipps, H Martelli
Location Auckland
Parties Le'Au v Hindin Marquip Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed following prank on co-worker at staff function – Respondent claimed conduct amounted to serious misconduct justifying dismissal – Applicant joked with workmates about urinating into co-worker’s (“R”) bottle at staff function – R advised of applicant’s conduct - R resigned citing “lack of management” and used applicant’s conduct as example – Respondent conducted investigation into allegation and advised applicant’s job in jeopardy – Respondent interviewed workers present at staff function – Workers stated “believed” applicant urinated into R’s bottle but no one certain if it actually occurred – Meeting held - Applicant claimed “didn’t do it” and respondent suggested applicant resign – Applicant signed resignation letter prepared by respondent – Authority found dismissal procedurally and substantively unjustified – Found conduct only serious enough for written warning – Found respondent failed to consider conduct in the context of occurring at staff function, had no connection to applicant’s job performance and R’s resignation not solely due to applicant’s misconduct – Found not given opportunity for explanation, advice or warning – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Found 100 per cent contributory conduct – Found applicant’s actions “blameworthy and contributed directly” to dismissal - Authority declined to make compensation award – Reimbursement of 13 weeks lost wages – Salesperson
Result Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($9,812.40)(13 weeks) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s124
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: aa 83_09.pdf [pdf 32 KB]