| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 172/10 |
| Hearing date | 24 Mar 2010 |
| Determination date | 15 April 2010 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | J Watson ; P Swarbrick |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hapuku v The Warehouse Ltd |
| Summary | INJUCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant dismissed without notice following several allegations of misconduct – Respondent claimed not possible to have necessary trust and confidence in applicant – Respondent began inquiry following telephone call by staff member to confidential complaint line provided by respondent to employees – Applicant argued unfair was not told identity of caller – Applicant suggested employee had agenda in respect of applicant – Authority found identity of complainant became immaterial to question of appropriate disciplinary action to be taken – Found no arguable case in relation to identity of complainant – Applicant claimed respondent failed to provide interview notes before requiring applicant to respond to allegations – Found information in interview notes conveyed orally to applicant – Applicant claimed reputation unnecessarily called into question – Found arguable case non-existent – Applicant claimed Human Resources Manager was not impartial because had discussion with applicant about acquiring BBQ – Found arguable case weak because misconduct in relation to proper procedures for making payment for BBQ – Found no prejudice – Found delay in raising allegations trivial – Found arguable case in dismissing applicant for misconduct – Found weak arguable case applicant would be reinstated if successful with claim of unjustified dismissal – Found given loss of trust and confidence reinstatement would be in name only and more severe imposition on respondent than applicant – Found applicant may not be able to meet undertakings to any damages if reinstated to payroll only – Found balance of convenience favoured respondent – Found overall justice lay in not reinstating applicant – Assistant Store Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA s101C;ERA s103A;ERA s125;ERA s127 |
| Cases Cited | Cliff v Air New Zealand Ltd unreported, Colgan J, 24 Feb 2005, AC 6A/05;Young v Armourguard Security Ltd unreported, G Wood, 20 Nov 2001, WA 85/01 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 172_10.pdf [pdf 44 KB] |