| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 188/10 |
| Hearing date | 15 Feb 2010 |
| Determination date | 26 April 2010 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | M Whitehead ; R Parmenter |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Botes v Engineering Recruiters Ltd |
| Summary | RECOVERY OF MONIES – Applicant sought reimbursement of work expenses – Applicant claimed parties verbally agreed costs incurred would be reimbursed - Respondent argued no agreement made therefore no obligation to reimburse expenses pursuant to employment agreement (“EA”) – Authority found parties separated rights and obligations owed under EA governing applicant’s activities on behalf of respondent – Found no verbal agreement made – Found no obligation to reimburse applicant – Application declined - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Serious Misconduct - Applicant received email outlining options with respect to applicant’s future employment at respondent – Meeting held and applicant indicated preferred option – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed after meeting – Authority found email related to earlier discussion therefore not redundancy notice – Found no redundancy conclusion made – No dismissal – Respondent alleged unauthorised downloading of information and use of email address against applicant – Applicant advised had reasonable explanation for allegations – Applicant raised respondent improperly accessed private correspondence – Applicant suspended – Applicant refused to provide responses to key allegations and asserted personal data needed to be returned – Applicant gave no reasons for wanting data returned – Applicant dismissed – Found applicant suspended without contractual authority and consultation – Found applicant not in possession of respondent’s information therefore grounds for suspension no longer existed – Found unlawful suspension - Unjustified disadvantage – Found applicant had full opportunity to provide full explanation to allegations – Found applicant did not act in good faith by giving full explanations – Found allegations sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal for serious misconduct – REMEDIES – Found no contributory conduct as unlawful suspension not attributable to applicant - $250 compensation appropriate – Authority declined orders for respondent to return applicant’s personal data |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Application dismissed (Recovery of monies)(Unjustified dismissal) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($250) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s5;ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | B & D Doors Ltd v Hamilton unreported, CC 28/07, Couch J, 18 December 2007 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 188_10.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |