| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Wellington 55 |
| Hearing date | 24 Feb 2011 |
| Determination date | 12 April 2011 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | J McGuire ; A Stuart |
| Location | Palmerston North |
| Parties | M'Nijel v Lush (New Zealand) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant dismissed for failing to follow cash handling procedures following discovery of unexplained discrepancies in petty cash – Applicant attended disciplinary meeting – Applicant claimed not informed what decision would involve or outcomes being considered – Applicant claimed not trained properly – Applicant accepted failed to attach receipts to petty cash dockets due to oversight or mistake or dockets mislaid – Decision to suspend applicant on full pay made without consulting applicant or giving applicant opportunity to respond – Applicant accepted as store manager, responsible for petty cash dockets – Applicant’s explanations rejected – Applicant dismissed – Authority found no grievance raised in relation to unjustifiable disadvantage for suspension – Found applicant not provided with findings or put on notice of possibility of disciplinary action – Found respondent did not give applicant opportunity for input into other options before making decision to dismiss – Found decision to dismiss conveyed to applicant without being told findings or dismissal possible outcome – Found failing to follow correct process not action of fair and reasonable employer – Found not fatal letters pre-prepared as covered different options – Found fair and reasonable employer would have included applicant in discussion about options – Found no predetermination – Found dismissal letter too general, implying all matters subject of investigation included in reasons in finding serious misconduct - Found fair and reasonable employer would not have categorised conduct as serious misconduct because no finding of wilful and deliberate misconduct, applicant’s work merely involved poor administration and attention to detail, no issue about applicant’s honesty and respondent accepted other matters at issue could be fixed with training – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – 30 percent contributory conduct – Applicant sought reinstatement – Found number of witness opposed reinstatement – Witness stated applicant’s return would create disharmony and tension – Found applicant would need to be managed from distance – Authority rejected applicant’s explanation about inadequate training – Reinstatement impracticable – $2,153 reimbursement of lost wages appropriate – $3,500 compensation appropriate – Store Manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($3,076 reduced to $2,153.20) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000 reduced to $3,500) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Wellington_55.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |