| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 114/10 |
| Hearing date | 25 Feb 2010 |
| Determination date | 15 March 2010 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | A Witten-Hannah ; P Akbar |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Gray v James Pascoe Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Misconduct – Applicant used respondent’s services to repair personal item – Applicant removed ring from respondent’s premises without paying – Sum owed for repair remained outstanding - First meeting held – Applicant claimed general store practice to allow employees pay for repairs after item removed from premises – Claimed respondent’s branch manager (“X”) authorised and also engaged in such practice – Respondent’s regional manager (“L”) conducted investigation interviewing X and employee (“Y”) involved in repair – X denied applicant’s claims – L audited documentations which confirmed X not engaged in such practice – Second meeting held – L advised applicant conduct constituted serious misconduct – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed misconduct investigation inadequate as X and Y not re-interviewed before concluding misconduct – Respondent argued re-interview not needed as believed X and Y’s evidence credible – Authority found inappropriate for respondent not to re-interview – Found witnesses concerned should have been re-interviewed in case of better recollection of events – Found prior history of relationship problems between applicant and X relevant in determining credibility – Applicant claimed inappropriate for previous store manager (“A”) to sit in on disciplinary meeting – Claimed relationship problems with A should have precluded A’s involvement – Found inappropriate for A to sit in on process – Found L should have used another manager for assistance – Found dismissal procedually unjustified – Applicant claimed serious misconduct conclusion unjustified – Found applicant knew company policy prohibited such conduct – Found not credible for applicant to claim X authorised the conduct – Found dismissal for serious misconduct substantively justified – Found procedural deficiencies did not fatally undermine finding dismissal justified - Found even if found dismissal unjustified, applicant entirely contributed to situation – Retail/Sales Assistant |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 114_10.pdf [pdf 23 KB] |