| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 28 |
| Hearing date | 20 Oct 2010 |
| Determination date | 17 February 2011 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | J Guthrie ; C Sargeson |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Moodie v The Mill Liquorsave Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed final written warning received was unjustified and caused disadvantage - Applicant received warning for breach of respondent’s rule that employees treat colleagues and other persons with courtesy and respect – Warning issued following two written complaints of bullying by employee (“L”) who applicant supervised - Authority found respondent undertook full and fair investigation of complaint by L about applicant’s conduct towards him – Found applicant had opportunity to give explanation about conduct and it was considered – Find while applicant did not accept conduct towards L inappropriate, fair and reasonable employer entitled to conclude conduct inappropriate and was some evidence of pattern of behaviour prior to L’s complaint - Found fair and reasonable employer would have given applicant final written warning in all circumstances - No unjustified disadvantage - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Misconduct – Respondent advised applicant had received report from mystery shopper that applicant had failed to ask person under 25 for identification – Respondent had policy that all staff obtain identification from all customers under 25 – Applicant attended disciplinary meeting – Applicant did not deny had served customer and failed to ask for identification – Respondent advised applicant felt had no alternative but to propose termination of employment – Applicant left workplace - Applicant’s brother advised respondent applicant would not be returning to work and asked if notice could be paid – Respondent claimed employment relationship terminated by mutual agreement – Authority found no mutual agreement to terminate employment – Found applicant simply accepted inevitability employment with respondent would end – Found initiative to end relationship came from respondent – Found applicant dismissed - Authority accepted applicant’s submission that failing to obtain identification was misconduct not serious misconduct – However, respondent relied on final written warning – Found warning provided that any further instances of unacceptable behaviour could result in dismissal – Unacceptable behaviour not limited to type which final warning given for - Found applicant given opportunity to comment on proposed outcome – Found in circumstances where was final written warning and admitted further breach of respondent’s policy , fair and reasonable employer, after considering alternatives, would have dismissed applicant on notice - Dismissal justified – Authority not satisfied were any breaches by respondent of its good faith obligations - Assistant Manager |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_28.pdf [pdf 55 KB] |