| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 215/10 |
| Hearing date | 21 Sep 2009 - 18 Dec 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 06 May 2010 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | B Edwards ; G Conway |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Samuels v Lewis Equipment Company Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed written warnings unjustified – Claimed dismissal unjustified as serious misconduct allegations false – First written warning issued alleging applicant purchased unauthorised items – Second written warning issued alleging applicant helped co-worker remove property from workplace without permission – Authority found allegations never put to applicant and no opportunity for explanation given – Found unjustifiably disadvantaged – Applicant requested by respondent’s client (“X”) to fix crane – Applicant took work tool to repair crane – Applicant advised respondent fixing crane and had tool – Respondent instructed applicant to continue repair – Respondent discovered bolt damaged and instructed applicant to remove bolt – Respondent believed different tool originally used to repair crane which damaged bolt – Respondent alleged applicant repairing crane to cover for employees responsible for damage – Applicant denied allegations - Disciplinary meeting held – Respondent concluded applicant’s explanations unsatisfactory – Applicant dismissed for serious misconduct – Authority found allegations not put to applicant – Found no opportunity for explanation given – Found no proper investigation held – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Found applicant’s failure to sign off at respondent before carrying out work for X contributed to situation – Found conduct not blameworthy as applicant sought respondent’s permission and instructed applicant to stay on site – No reduction of remedies – Reimbursement of three months lost wages calculated as difference between wages at respondent and wages at new employer - $5,000 compensation appropriate – COUNTERCLAIM – Respondent counterclaimed for damages for damaging bolt – Counterclaimed applicant connived in covering up cause of damage - Authority found no basis to support counterclaims – Counterclaims dismissed |
| Result | Applications granted (Unjustified disadvantage)(Unjustified dismissal) ; Application dismissed (Counterclaim) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (Quantum to be determined) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 215_10.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |