| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 172A/10 |
| Hearing date | 28 Apr 2010 |
| Determination date | 14 July 2010 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | J Watson ; P Swarbrick |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hapuku v The Warehouse Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Respondent argued applicant dismissed for firstly removing company property, secondly using co-workers logon; including issues with database adjustments, and thirdly failing to follow company processes – Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified and reinstatement sought – First and second allegations found to amount to serious misconduct under respondent’s house rules – Found respondent reasonably concluded applicant’s actions amounted to serious misconduct under house rules – Found no dispute applicant removed barbeque from respondent’s premises and did not pay or offer to pay – Applicant argued thought had permission and took property away to assess extent of defects thought existed – Respondent viewed applicant as having removed property without following what applicant knew were proper procedures – Authority found no unfairness to applicant in investigation with manager being both witness and decision maker – Found respondent’s actions those of fair and reasonable employer – Found conduct by senior employee in breach of primary and fundamental rules could reasonably be considered serious misconduct – Found fair and reasonable employer would have dismissed applicant for failures regarding logging onto co-workers computer and making adjustments – No unjustified dismissal – Found applicant not disadvantaged by disciplinary investigation – No unjustified disadvantage – Assistant Store Manager |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 172a_10.pdf [pdf 46 KB] |