| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 42 |
| Hearing date | 29 Oct 2010 - 2 Nov 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 01 February 2011 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | K Beck ; D France |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Rivers v SCA Hygiene Australasia Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed colleague (“P”) asked whether applicant wanted bolts that were to be thrown out – Applicant took bolts but stopped and questioned about taking items before leaving site – Applicant took two soap dispensers after hearing employees could take one – Employees required to get prior permission before taking surplus items from respondent – Respondent claimed applicant’s actions constituted serious misconduct – Applicant suspended – Applicant claimed knowledge of procedure for taking items did not justify finding of serious misconduct – Authority found evidence did not support applicant had no intention to remove bolts – Found applicant would have taken bolts if not stopped and questioned – Found not unfair for respondent to discount probability applicant thought had permission to remove bolts in light of applicant’s knowledge about procedure for removing items – Found applicant acted deliberately in taking soap dispensers – Found nothing in evidence to support applicant had mistaken belief entitled to remove items without following usual procedure – Found applicant understood breached procedures and apologised – Found applicant clear about allegations – Found applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension – Found applicant’s long service considered as mitigating factor – Found applicant received final written warning after previously taking items without following procedure – Found respondent considered alternatives to dismissal – Found respondent’s decision to dismiss applicant harsh – Found applicant knowingly failed to follow procedure and unfortunately there were serious consequences – Found respondent able to impose consequences in specific circumstances at time – Dismissal justified - Storeman |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s174 |
| Cases Cited | Chief Executive of Unitec Institute of Technology v Henderson unreported, Colgan CJ, 19 March 2007, AC 12/07;Farmers Trading Co Ltd v Deadman [1998] 3 ERNZ 128;Glengarry Hancocks Limited v Madden [1998] 3 ERNZ 361;Kereopa v Go Bus Transport Limited unreported, Travis J, 18 Sept 2009, AC 25A/09;Makatoa v Restaurant Brands (NZ) Limited [1994] 2 ERNZ 311;Murphy and Routhan t/a Enzo’s Pizza v van Beek [1998] 2 ERNZ 607;United Food Workers v Wattie Foods [1991] 3 ERNZ 839 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_42.pdf [pdf 49 KB] |