Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 71/10
Hearing date 9 Feb 2010
Determination date 16 February 2010
Member M Urlich
Representation M Nutsford ; no appearance
Location Auckland
Parties Timmins v S L Trade Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – No appearance for respondent – Applicant invited to attend meeting – Applicant not told purpose of meeting or given opportunity to have representative present – Respondent alleged applicant used company funds without approval and exceeded reasonable use of company internet for personal email and gaming – Respondent failed to put any evidence to applicant to comment on – Applicant dismissed – Authority found applicant not given fair notice of disciplinary meeting – Found applicant not told what meeting was about or disciplinary consequences – Found no opportunity to have representative present – Found not given fair opportunity to respond to allegations – Found no opportunity for applicant to make submissions on possible disciplinary options – Authority did not accept applicant accepted allegations – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Found unauthorised expenditure was blameworthy conduct – 25 percent contributory conduct – Found applicant took reasonable steps to mitigate lost wages – Applicant entitled to full reimbursement of lost wages – $3,000 compensation appropriate – RECOVERY OF MONIES – Applicant claimed unpaid commission – Payment contingent on sales – Found no sales made – Counterclaim – Respondent claimed for damages allegedly caused by applicant’s actions – Counterclaim dismissed for want of evidence
Result Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (reduced to $1,887) ; Compensation for humiliation etc (reduced to $2,250) ; Applications dismissed (recovery of monies)(counterclaim) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A;ERA s124
Cases Cited Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415
Number of Pages 5
PDF File Link: aa 71_10.pdf [pdf 23 KB]