| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 126/09 |
| Hearing date | 13 Aug 2009 |
| Determination date | 03 September 2009 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | G Lloyd ; B Pepperell |
| Location | New Plymouth |
| Parties | Horton v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Misconduct – Applicant claimed not responsible for unauthorised possession of respondent’s property therefore dismissal unjustified – Respondent argued entitled to conclude serious misconduct after proper investigation – Applicant obtained authority from contractor to remove scrap iron from workplace – Contractor made clear new iron not to be removed and which bundles were scrap iron – Applicant failed to obtain authority from respondent’s consultant at request of contractor – Truck driver raised doubts about appropriateness of materials applicant instructed driver to remove – Respondent’s manager discovered new iron at applicant’s property – Investigation concluded applicant’s claim not credible – Applicant summarily dismissed – Authority found respondent conducted fair inquiry into how new iron came onto applicant’s property – Found respondent’s misconduct conclusion reasonable - Found witness accounts supported allegation applicant knowingly took new iron without authorisation – Dismissal justified – Mechanical Technician |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415;Air New Zealand v V (2009) 9 NZELC 93,209 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 126_09.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |