| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 361/10 |
| Hearing date | 17 Dec 2008 - 14 Jul 2009 (5 days) |
| Determination date | 17 August 2010 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | K Nicholson ; J Douglas |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Arora v Sato New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant held responsible for inaccurate stock take reporting and tax penalties outstanding – Auditors required respondent sign representation letter providing undertakings accounts correct – Applicant drafted letter but made no reference to stock discrepancy – Managing director (“R”) corrected omission – R claimed auditors believed applicant did not understand Goodwill Impairment Model – Applicant invited to disciplinary meeting to discuss issues – No disciplinary measures taken – R later spoke with applicant about imbalances in GST figures and other discrepancies – Applicant involved in another inventory issue which resulted in increased auditor’s fee and delayed completion of audit – Applicant invited to attend disciplinary meeting – After third meeting applicant dismissed – Respondent claimed applicant did not appreciate significance and seriousness of issues – Applicant claimed R targeted and dismissed applicant in retaliation to applicant’s complaints of unfair treatment by R – Authority found stock discrepancy significant – Found applicant not given express instruction to talk to auditors about discrepancies – Found applicant to take overall responsibility for financial reporting – R claimed suspected applicant underestimated stock figure because annual bonus entitlements affected – Found dismissal could not be justified retrospectively on information emerged since dismissal – Found no reasonable basis to conclude applicant deliberately misled R or auditors – Found serious shortcomings in applicant’s work – Found applicant failed to take initiative but no serious misconduct – Found R failed to give applicant adequate feedback about what had been done wrong and requirements – Found no disciplinary action taken after first disciplinary meeting – Found when disciplinary proceedings commenced, recurrence of same problem elevated to serious misconduct – Found not action of fair and reasonable employer – Found applicant’s handling of matters amounted to poor performance which required management – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Found applicant refused to acknowledge auditor’s assessment of stock more reliable – Found applicant claimed company property applicant’s own – 40 percent contributory conduct – $12,000 compensation appropriate – Found applicant made sufficient effort to mitigate loss – Found none of management team received performance bonuses and not entitled to bonus after termination – Found 75 percent of car allowance, professional registration fees, broadband and parking reimbursed as business expense – $31,500 reimbursement of wages and car allowance appropriate – $321 reimbursement of health insurance appropriate – No award for arrears of wages – General Manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($20,000 reduced to $12,000) ; Reimbursement of lost wages and car allowance ($52,500 reduced to $31,500) ; Reimbursement of health insurance premiums ($535.20 reduced to $321.12) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Dearns v Eagle Technology Group Limited [2002] ERNZ 529 |
| Number of Pages | 24 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 361_10.pdf [pdf 63 KB] |