| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 107/09 |
| Hearing date | 16 Jul 2009 |
| Determination date | 21 July 2009 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | N Ironside ; C Meechan |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Tennent v Canon New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant claimed unjustified summary dismissal for serious misconduct allegation – Respondent claimed dismissal substantively justified - Respondent’s manager (“B”) discovered GPS unit in applicant’s company car had intermittent faults – On first occasion, GPS technicians did not conclude GPS had been tampered with – On second occasion, technicians concluded GPS had been tampered with as different tape had been used to re-secure connections – B declined applicant’s request to disclose specific details of tampering allegation before disciplinary meeting because B wanted to hear applicant’s “spontaneous response” to test truthfulness of applicant’s explanations – Applicant denied allegations at first disciplinary meeting despite evidence provided – B subsequently received applicant’s written admission to disconnecting GPS however denied actions constituted “tampering” – B concluded after final disciplinary meeting dismissal for deliberately damaging GPS and lying to respondent – Applicant claimed arguable case on two heads – First, whether B’s failure to provide relevant information prior to first meeting constituted breach of good faith – Second, whether breach sufficiently serious to render dismissal substantively unjustified – Authority accepted arguable case on first claim – Found no arguable case on second claim – Found relevant information disclosed to applicant before dismissal decision made – Found “tampering” adequately described allegation in light of applicant’s admission – Found no evidence of predetermination – Found B entitled to conclude applicant lied – Applicant claimed distress and humiliation suffered put balance of convenience in their favour – Respondent argued lost trust and confidence – Found balance of convenience and overall justice favoured respondent – Found damages adequate to compensate for lost remuneration and distress – Found impractical to reinstate applicant when trust and confidence lost – Found applicant author of own misfortune therefore weak case for permanent reinstatement – Interim reinstatement declined – Technician |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s4(1A)(c) |
| Cases Cited | Griffith v Sunbeam Corporation Limited, unreported, Couch J, 21 Nov 2005, WC 13/06 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 107_09.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |