| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 45/09 |
| Hearing date | 10 Feb 2009 - 11 Feb 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 09 April 2009 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | J Beck ; S Wilson |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Featherston v Ravensdown Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed following alleged serious misconduct – Defendant argued applicant’s dishonestly and failure to follow company policy amounted to serious misconduct – Applicant generated piping order through respondent’s purchasing system using third party name – Respondent received invoice – Invoice silent as to who authorised order – Purchasing officer (“R”) discovered applicant ordered and charged order under respondent – Applicant advised R pipes on worksite and for respondent’s project – Piping not located – Matter referred to Manager (“H”) – Applicant told H piping at home – First meeting held – Applicant admitted knowing company policy for staff purchases – Conflict of evidence whether applicant admitted failure to follow requirements – Applicant admitted lying to R and H – Second meeting held – Applicant advised provisional conclusion of serious misconduct and dismissal warranted – Third meeting held with General Manager (“W”) – Applicant raised new material – W concluded applicant “dishonest”, “misled” respondent and failed to follow company policy – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed intended to personally pay for piping and medical condition caused forgetfulness to pay – Authority found respondent correctly used applicant’s actions to infer intent rather than discern applicant’s state of mind at time of incident – Found applicant’s actions to ensure piping paid for by respondent and promote fiction order legitimate – Found medical condition irrelevant because “trigger points” present throughout incident to prompt payment – Found applicant senior manager and knew charging order to respondent would mislead respondent – Applicant could have told R order for personal use when asked – Applicant claimed misunderstood company policy therefore believed could reimburse respondent later – Respondent’s evidence applicant admitted knowing and breaching policy at first meeting preferred – Found applicant should have made enquiries if misunderstood policy – Found incident lacked “transparency” and “deliberate and sustained attempt to evade detection” – Found applicant admitted to misleading R – Applicant claimed “set up” by respondent – Found investigation fair and reasonable – Found investigation to determine if company purchasing system abused by applicant – Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified – Found dismissal justified because applicant damaged trust and confidence required of senior manager – Applicant claimed no warning of allegations, not advised R investigating incident and seriousness of matter – Found applicant knew R investigating matter because R asked applicant about invoice – Found H compromised legitimacy of procedure by minimising seriousness of matter to applicant and advising applicant’s representative of dismissal – Found H’s actions corrected by W’s subsequent action of holding final meeting to provide final opportunity for explanation – Found an imperfect process could be perfected by subsequent corrective actions – Dismissal justified – Senior Manger |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Blaker v B & D (New Zealand) Ltd, unreported, Travis J, 21 Sept 2007, AC8B/07;Rankin v Attorney General (No 2) [2001] ERNZ 476 |
| Number of Pages | 18 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 45_09.pdf [pdf 50 KB] |