| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 448/09 |
| Hearing date | 28 Jul 2009 - 29 Jul 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 11 December 2009 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | D McLeod ; L Foley |
| Location | Taupo |
| Parties | Karaka v Milkpride Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustified demotion – Respondent argued no demotion as applicant did not accept new employment agreement (“EA”) to change duties and no further action taken by respondent to change applicant’s duties – Respondent concerned about applicant’s poor performance – Meetings held to construct strategy for better management – Applicant accepted changes needed but did not offer suggestions - Respondent claimed applicant subsequently offered to step down – Respondent employed new employee to handle milk quality matters – Respondent sent applicant new EA offering new position with decreased salary – Applicant declined new EA – Authority found applicant agreed to demotion during party discussions – No disadvantage - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified – Respondent argued applicant solicited employees to work for competitor – Respondent investigated rumours applicant soliciting employees to work for competitor – Respondent discovered applicant told employees responsible for employing managers and offered them salaries with competitor – Discovered applicant had associations with competitors – Discovered applicant accompanied employee (“X”) to job interview with competitor – Respondent put to applicant allegations applicant soliciting respondent’s employees – Applicant explained under no arrangement with competitor to recruit staff – Applicant denied offering employment with competitor to respondent’s employees - Disciplinary meetings held – Respondent concluded employees’ evidence of applicant’s conduct reliable – Respondent found applicant’s conduct seriously breached trust, confidence and fidelity – Applicant dismissed – Authority found applicant’s conduct amounted to solicitation of respondent’s employees – Found applicant followed up on offers made to employees therefore more than just providing information - Found respondent’s conclusion applicant had association with competitors correct – Found applicant may not have had authority to offer employment but offers made – Found applicant’s conduct breached obligations of fidelity and good faith – Dismissal justified – Farm Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s5 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 448_09.pdf [pdf 40 KB] |