| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 326/09 |
| Hearing date | 3 Aug 2009 |
| Determination date | 10 September 2009 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | G Lloyd ; R Larmer |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Pani v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant summarily dismissed following finding either involved in taking, or assisted co-worker (“S”), in taking items from Christmas hampers being gifted to respondent’s employees - Hampers stored in two buses, whose doors were closed but not locked - Employees told to stay away from buses - Employee (“C”) claimed saw applicant and S inside bus; 20 minutes later saw them standing on steps of bus - C claimed looked as though applicant and S had items stuffed into overalls - Later that day C saw food of same type as in hampers in S’s van - C told employee second in charge of workshop (“J”) what had seen - J talked to applicant and S - J informed respondent’s People and Performance Advisor (“H”) - Respondent checked hampers and discovered items missing - Respondent received reports from staff who had already received hampers that some items missing - H gave applicant letter asking for explanation - Applicant replied denying any wrongdoing - At first meeting parties went through C’s statement - Applicant claimed had been hanging around area but had not been talking to S - At disciplinary meeting applicant claimed walking to body shop and stopped to chat with S - Claimed only saw clothes, packet of biscuits, but not like those in hamper, and alcohol in back of S’s truck - Claimed S showed him pornographic magazine - Applicant claimed then carried on to body shop and then went to smoko room - Following number of adjournments meeting concluded by respondent saying believed applicant involved in taking goods with S - Respondent regarded actions as serious misconduct and applicant advised employment terminated because respondent no longer trusted him - Authority did not accept respondent should have concluded no reliable evidence placing applicant on bus and that no evidence of him taking anything out of bus - Authority found respondent carried out fair investigation - Found applicant given notice of allegation and opportunity to respond - Found no bias in investigation or consideration of applicant’s explanations - Found applicant aware who complainant was and applicant’s Union representative permitted to question C - Authority found on balance of probabilities and objective basis respondent entitled to conclude applicant had been on bus and had either removed or helped S remove items from hampers - Dismissal justified - Coach Builder |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand with exceptions Shipwright Union v Honda New Zealand Limited [1990] 3 NZILR 33 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 326_09.pdf [pdf 29 KB] |