| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 143 |
| Hearing date | 1 Sep 2011 |
| Determination date | 26 September 2011 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | J Waines (in person) ; L Ryder |
| Location | Westport |
| Parties | Waines v Karamea Information & Resource Centre Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant offered additional role of finance officer – Respondent’s treasurer claimed first deficit by respondent caused alarm amongst members of management committee (“C”) – C installed covert cameras in and around business premises to see what was going on – Applicant received letter from C which asked applicant to respond to allegations picked up by cameras – Applicant claimed failed to scan purchases because had been busy day – Applicant claimed removed money from jar on counter because left purse at home having had early morning fire service call out – Applicant claimed jar contained money found on floor and tips for staff – Respondent claimed jar contained donations collected for local newspaper – Applicant admitted took money from jar and returned some of money taken when respondent considering whether actions serious misconduct – Applicant claimed took money from jar on second occasion as needed small change in till – Authority found difficult to persuade applicant that had done something wrong by removing money from jar because applicant viewed jar as multi-purpose facility – Found camera footage did not confirm busy in shop when applicant failed to scan purchases – Respondent did not accept necessity for money to be transferred from jar to till without being properly accounted for – Applicant claimed on another occasion tried to scan product but system malfunctioned – Found explanation not provided to employer so Authority discounted it completely – Applicant claimed workplace “slapdash” and no one accountable – Respondent startled by evidence of applicant – Found applicant should have known importance of proper systems and obligation to maintain integrity of operation based on experience in accounting matters and was longstanding employee – Found respondent went into disciplinary process expecting viable and credible explanations for what it had seen – Applicant dismissed for serious misconduct – Found respondent did not allege applicant stole money, rather failed to follow proper documented processes – Found even if applicant busy, little excuse for not following absolutely simple and straightforward processes which were almost reflex action in retail setting – Applicant claimed not given proper access to camera footage – Found applicant did not make request during disciplinary process – Found respondent under no legal obligation to provide camera footage unless asked for it – Found sufficient basis for respondent to ground finding of serious misconduct because of complete failure of trust and confidence – Applicant claimed not possible for respondent to reach conclusions it did because no daily counts – Found daily counts provided to Authority but did not assist allegations – Dismissal justified – Finance Officer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;Interpretation Act 1999 s7 |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v V [2009] ERNZ 185;BP Oil Ltd v Northern Distribution Workers’ IUOW [1989] 3 NZILR 276;Meyrick v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd unreported, E Robinson, 24 Aug 2010, AA 381/10;Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil NZ Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_143.pdf [pdf 71 KB] |