| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 214 |
| Hearing date | 5 Apr 2011 |
| Determination date | 19 May 2011 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | V Patel (in person) ; S-J Davies |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Patel v Pegasus Stations Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant sought reinstatement – Respondent owned Mobil service stations (“M”) – M operated fuel discount programme for customers – Customers received discount if combined purchases - M’s audit showed discount programme procedure not followed – M undertook employee training on correct procedure and issued applicant with ‘coaching note’ letter – Letter noted future failure to follow procedure could result in dismissal – Letter not disciplinary warning – Staff later issued with procedure guidelines stating employees could not hold customer’s sale and attach another sale to receive discount - Guidelines warned non-compliance could result in dismissal – Applicant had copy of guidelines and discussed with manager – Manager (“F”) noticed applicant not following procedure – Employee (“A”) held own purchase and combined with customer fuel purchases for discount during applicant’s shift – Applicant failed to log error – Applicant claimed did not attach log as left under counter – F advised applicant of disciplinary meeting and gave applicant opportunity to view footage of incident – Store manager (“R”) told applicant to provide explanation at meeting – Applicant told respondent at meeting unable to correct error during shift and was busy – Authority noted applicant not busy at time A made purchases and A and applicant had conversation – F raised other errors at meeting – Applicant claimed attempted to balance till and amounts within company tolerance – Authority noted till balancing process not followed – Applicant claimed later found log but forgot to give to manager at end of shift – Admitted often held transactions, claimed other employers did same – Claimed other employees had not been disciplined and raised health and safety complaint – Respondent denied applicant explained suffering from depression at second meeting – Authority found depression explanation not given during meeting – Respondent claimed applicant dismissed as significant failure, distributed recent information on correct procedure and applicant did not make mistake – Authority found applicant not busy at time of A’s transaction and deliberate breach – Found reasonable conclusion serious misconduct and applicant had received letter about correct procedure noting breach was serious misconduct – Found no disparity of employee treatment by respondent – Dismissal justified - Customer Services Agent |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s114 |
| Cases Cited | Chief Executive Officer Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan [2005] ERNZ 767;Samu v Air New Zealand Ltd [1995] ERNZ 636 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_214.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |