| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 253/10 |
| Hearing date | 20 Aug 2009 |
| Determination date | 25 May 2010 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | M Ryan ; P Swarbrick, K Jones |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | French v The Warehouse Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed suspension without consultation caused unjustified disadvantage – Respondent argued serious misconduct warranted suspension – Applicant confronted respondent’s manager (“Y”) about alleged suspension upon hearing rumours at workplace – Conflict of evidence whether Y offered applicant opportunity to have support person – Meeting held - Y advised would hold meeting later to discuss allegations and for applicant to give explanation – Y interrupted by applicant when tried to explain reasons for suspension – Parties agreed to meet following day however respondent postponed meeting without explanation – Authority found applicant given opportunity to have support person – Found applicant interrupted Y before reasons for suspension given – Found Y tried to conduct meeting fairly – Found when Y read out suspension letter, applicant suspended without consultation – Found however, allegations sufficiently serious to warrant suspension – Found any disadvantage suffered minor – Applicant claimed bullied by managers (“X”) – Applicant made complaint to respondent alleging X physically and verbally abused applicant – Alleged X’s complaint about applicant led to suspension – Y advised applicant allegations would be investigated – No investigation took place as applicant subsequently dismissed – Found employee complaint should be investigated whether or not employment relationship continued – Found however, complaint lacked specifics about alleged conduct – Found X only alerted respondent to irregular transactions but did not participate in disciplinary proceedings - No disadvantage – Applicant claimed respondent breached confidentiality by disclosing applicant’s suspension to employees – Found respondent confidentially disclosed information necessary for managers to handle disruptions – Found employees subject to same disciplinary actions divulged information – Found respondent could not reasonably be expected to control such activity – Found applicant’s partner divulged information breaching confidentiality – Found no evidence of disadvantage – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified as respondent did consider applicant’s written explanation – Applicant’s written explanation inadequate – Applicant had opportunities to submit further explanations however missed deadlines – Applicant dismissed for serious misconduct – Authority found respondent’s evidence confirmed alleged serious misconduct – Found applicant’s explanations did not contain information sufficient for respondent to revisit dismissal decision – Found disciplinary procedure fair - Dismissal justified – REMEDIES – Authority declined to award remedy for suspension without consultation and breach of confidentiality as no evidence of disadvantage caused – Customer Service |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified disadvantage – Suspension) ; Applications dismissed (Unjustified disadvantage – Breach of confidentiality and bullying)(Unjustified dismissal) ; Remedies declined ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 253_10.pdf [pdf 43 KB] |