Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 95/10
Hearing date 16 Dec 2009
Determination date 03 March 2010
Member L Robinson
Representation H Wendelborn ; R Kingsnorth, K Hughes
Location Auckland
Parties Debreceni v Apollo Marketing & Advertising Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent discovered applicant advertised own sexual email and explicit photography services on respondent’s advertising website – Respondent concerned activity would conflict with respondent’s operation and its client sexual email service (“F”) – Respondent discovered F not genuine customer but created by applicant – Respondent claimed F’s advertisement banner featured applicant’s daughter and photographs of daughter kept on respondent’s computer system – Applicant claimed assumed respondent knew about F because director’s niece (“S”) knew about activity – Respondent claimed applicant recorded four payments by F – Applicant suspended pending disciplinary meeting – Applicant claimed F was sales tool – Applicant claimed S assisted applicant with respect to advertising and daughter agreed to cut S’s hair in return for photographs taken – Applicant dismissed – Found respondent entitled to reject explanation F sales tool for respondent – Found applicant never told respondent about activity – Found applicant used respondent’s time and resources to pursue own private activities – Found applicant set up F as genuine customer when it was not – Found applicant documented business transactions as though F was genuine customer – Found respondent entitled to form view that applicant’s activities seriously undermined trust and confidence respondent could repose in applicant – Dismissal justified – Business Account Manager
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A
Number of Pages 6
PDF File Link: aa 95_10.pdf [pdf 24 KB]