| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 405/09 |
| Hearing date | 21 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 17 November 2009 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | M O'Brien ; S Dalzell |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Taylor v Bae Systems Australia Shipbuilding (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant paid respondent’s contractors (“E”) to paint roof on own private house – Applicant claimed not responsible for managing day to day work of E – Applicant unaware E claiming hours on timesheets for work completed for applicant – Timesheets authorised by applicant and subsequently by respondent – Respondent argued applicant breached company policy regarding subcontractor – Authority found evident respondent had formed adverse view of applicant’s honesty – Applicant claimed during meetings with respondent not informed could bring representative or dismissal possible outcome – Applicant approved timesheets for days roof work completed which recorded painting as maintenance chargeable to respondent – Respondent told applicant conduct extremely poor if not dishonest – Argued applicant had arranged work without notifying respondent – Argued applicant had personally gained from arrangement with E as received less than going commercial rate – Argued applicant’s conduct of falsifying timesheets amounted to serious misconduct under house rules – Applicant summarily dismissed – Authority found aggravating factors to applicant’s suspension caused unjustified disadvantage – Found no detriment caused to respondent as no work for E to complete for respondent – Found applicant did not obtain personal benefit – Found proposal to E was to provide benefit once redundant – Authority rejected respondent’s argument applicant attempted to mislead or defraud respondent – Found applicant’s actions foolish or careless but not serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Authority found applicant should have been more diligent in checking time sheets – Found 20 percent contributory conduct – Applicant claimed anticipating redundancy payment to help with retirement – Claimed felt like criminal and unable to provide for family – Found $7,000 compensation appropriate – Found applicant entitled to reimbursement of lost wages and redundancy entitlements – PENALTY – Found respondent’s failure to provide applicant with relevant information breach of good faith, however, penalty declined as found respondent’s actions unjustified – Manager General Operations |
| Result | Application dismissed (Penalty) ; Applications granted (Dismissal)(Disadvantage) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($27,761.54 reduced to $22,209.23) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($7,000 reduced to $5,600) ; Loss of benefit ($117,988.26)(Redundancy entitlements) ; Interest (4.79%) Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Singh v Sherildee Holdings Limited, unreported, Couch J, 22 September 2005, AC 53/05;B & D Doors Ltd v Hamilton (2008) 8 NZELC 99,258;Yukich v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [2004] 1 ERNZ 78 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 405_09.pdf [pdf 54 KB] |