| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 118 |
| Hearing date | 17 Feb 2011 - 18 Feb 2011 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 04 August 2011 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | M-J Thomas, R McLeod ; D Erickson |
| Location | Invercargill |
| Parties | Knedler v Flight Centre (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed justifiably dismissed applicant as breached trust and confidence – Applicant obtained employment with respondent but did not mention employment with Pak’n’Save – Respondent Team Leader (“B”) told by Pak’n’Save staff that applicant still employed at Pak’n’Save but on leave due to breast cancer – B informally met with applicant to hear applicant’s side – Applicant told B no longer employed by Pak’n’Save and did not mention employment with them as was short term part-time job – Applicant told B accepted full time role while working for Pak’n’Save after B said unsure whether applicant would lose job – Applicant later told B that tended resignation before started work for respondent – Respondent HR Manager (“M”) found referee from Curves was friend rather than direct supervisor as applicant claimed – M asked applicant to attend disciplinary meeting to explain issues of failing to disclose employment with Pak’n’Save, misrepresenting referee’s position with Curves and holding secondary employment with Pak’n’Save without respondent’s approval – Applicant requested B not be involved in meeting due to alleged friendship with D and Pak’n’Save’s security guard (“A”) – Respondent Area Leader (“P”) unsatisfied with applicant’s explanations and dismissed applicant day after meeting – P sent detailed letter to applicant outlining reasons for dismissal – Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified due to B’s continued involvement in disciplinary process, possibility of dismissal not mentioned and decision predetermined – Authority found no good reason to exclude B as B not decision maker and not friends with D or A – Found before informally meeting with applicant B should have given applicant notice that information had been obtained which if correct would mean applicant had not been truthful about employment history, disclosed the information openly and told applicant about risk of dismissal – Found applicant’s responses to B later relied on by P in decision to dismiss applicant – Found B’s actions not slight or immaterial deviations from the ideal – Found respondent’s disciplinary meeting fair – Found overall respondent’s process fair and reasonable – Found fair and reasonable for P to conclude that respondent’s trust and confidence in applicant was irreparably damaged – Dismissal justified |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c) |
| Cases Cited | NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever New Zealand Ltd [1990] NZILR 35;Rankin v Attorney-General in respect of the State Services Commissioner [2001] ERNZ 412 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_118.pdf [pdf 56 KB] |