| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 218/10 |
| Determination date | 10 May 2010 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | L Darroch ; B Griffiths |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Jack v Auckland City Council |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant dismissed for use of taxi voucher in breach of respondent's policies - Applicant given taxi voucher for use to get home from staff function - Applicant unable to find voucher when came to pay so used own money - Applicant did not return voucher to respondent - Applicant used voucher some months later for trip from airport after returning from personal holiday - Respondent noticed applicant's use of voucher when reconciling used vouchers - Applicant called to disciplinary meeting - Applicant informed had breached respondent's policies, action could amount to serious misconduct and advised could bring support person or representative - At meeting applicant claimed voucher used as person who was to collect her from airport delayed and so had to take taxi but found had insufficient funds to pay for it - Applicant claimed used taxi as running late for work and sought to minimise lateness - Claimed would pay respondent back - Also claimed using voucher to reimburse herself for earlier trip - Applicant claimed unaware breaching policies although acknowledged wrong to use voucher - Claimed other employees used vouchers in inappropriate ways - Following adjournment applicant summarily dismissed - Respondent claimed had obligation to ratepayers to be accountable, applicant acknowledged had done wrong, applicant could have sought reimbursement for taxi fare paid for personally after staff function, applicant had not reimbursed respondent, and existence of managerial discretion regarding use of vouchers to get home safely from work did not justify what amounted to personal use of voucher - Authority found not open to applicant to rely on other people's use without being in possession of all facts about that use - Found applicant's observations did not mean could consider herself justified in using voucher as did - Found dismissal not overreaction to an extent that rendered dismissal unjustifiable - Found respondent's actions within boundaries of fairness and reasonableness - Dismissal justified - Assistant Open Space Planner |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Wellington Road Transport etc IUOW v Fletcher Construction Co Ltd [1983] ACJ 653 ; (1983) ERNZ Sel Cas 59 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 218_10.pdf [pdf 24 KB] |