| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 174 |
| Hearing date | 4 Nov 2011 |
| Determination date | 14 November 2011 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | J Marquet ; P Churchman |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Burns v Southern District Health Board |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant dismissed after convicted of criminal charges pending before employment commenced – Parties disputed extent applicant advised respondent of criminal charges – Applicant claimed pleaded guilty to three remaining charges as could not afford to defend charges – Applicant advised respondent when applied for position had historic traffic offences and “current legal issue” with insurance company – Applicant offered employment subject to police check – Parties’ employment agreement provided could be terminated if applicant convicted of offence which impacted on applicant’s ability to perform role - Police check stated applicant had three charges pending – Applicant denied respondent told applicant at meeting employment in jeopardy depending on outcome of criminal charges – Authority found respondent told applicant at meeting employment in jeopardy – Applicant claimed at meeting was innocent - Applicant claimed discussed pending charges with manager (“Y”) at least three times – Found applicant only told Y some charges had been dropped and applicant did not give Y details about remaining charges – Applicant claimed told Y had decided to plead guilty because could no longer afford to defend claims – Found applicant only told Y struggling financially – Found applicant admitted some charges to police, only disputed circumstances of offending and did not claim was innocent – Applicant convicted and sentenced after made guilty plea – Applicant claimed dismissal predetermined – Found respondent’s decision not predetermined and respondent unaware applicant had altered documents before applicant convicted – Y claimed applicant had always said was innocent although had admitted to police had altered documents - Y sent applicant letter that applicant’s employment terminated as fraud conviction had damaged respondent’s trust and confidence in applicant – Y suggested parties have meeting so applicant had opportunity to comment – Y adjourned meeting to consider applicant’s sentencing report including that applicant had low risk of offending but later confirmed applicant’s dismissal – Found respondent sufficiently investigated matters before confirming applicant’s dismissal – Found respondent’s decision not to follow up applicant’s failure to provide judge’s minute did not mean respondent’s investigation unfair – Found respondent raised concerns and gave applicant reasonable opportunity to respond before made decision – Found respondent’s actions those of fair and reasonable employer – Dismissal justified - Supply Chain Improvement Leader |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | NZ Bank Officers IUOW v Databank Systems Ltd [1984] ACJ 21 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_174.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |