| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 497 |
| Determination date | 17 November 2011 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | C Stewart ; R Harrison |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Manoharan v The Chief Executive of Waiariki Institute of Technology |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Quantum of remedies - Authority previously found applicant had been unjustifiably dismissed by respondent but directed parties to undertake further mediation to determine remedies – Further mediation unsuccessful – Previously found applicant deliberately made false representation on respondent’s expense claim forms - Previously found some contributory conduct but did not determine level – Authority found applicant was claiming back own money had spent on respondent’s goods and no evidence that applicant misappropriated goods or diverted money – Found applicant and co-worker did not collaborate so gave matching explanations of conduct – Found applicant knowingly gave false answer to respondent when questioned if had made previous false claims – Found applicant’s explanation why had not remembered earlier false claims implausible – Found when applicant signed expense forms aware most of forms were for applicant’s expenses and could not approve own expenses – Found applicant actions were to hide expenses from respondent – Found applicant’s actions blameworthy to high degree – 80 percent contributory conduct – Found due to applicant’s dishonest conduct, seniority and contributory conduct reinstatement unavailable - $3,000 compensation appropriate - Authority previously also reserved final determination of respondent’s liability for damages and penalties – Previously found respondent prevented resolution of grievance when instructed employees not to assist applicant – Found respondent obstructed Authority’s investigation without sufficient cause - $6,000 penalty appropriate – Found was potential for harm or loss to applicant’s right to resolve grievance without obstruction - $7,500 damages payable – GOOD FAITH - Following Authority’s previous determination newspaper article quoted respondent as saying was disappointed by previous determination - Applicant made complaint to Authority about newspaper article and claimed respondent also misrepresented outcome of previous Authority determination in staff email - Applicant claimed respondent had unlawfully commented on matters not yet fully determined by Authority and had also breached good faith obligations – Found respondent telling staff and newspaper outcome of previous determination was disappointing did not undermine Authority’s previous determination – Found due to high level of publicity of applicant’s dismissal among staff was reasonable that respondent made some statement to staff and public - Found as newspaper later published prominent article that applicant had been unjustifiably dismissed applicant’s complaints should not be addressed by further remedies – Application dismissed - Senior Manager |
| Result | Quantum specified ; Contributory conduct (80%) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Penalty ($6,000)(Payable to Crown) ; Damages ($7,500) ; Application dismissed (good faith) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s123;ERA s124;ERA s134A;ERA s135;ERA s159(2) |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2011] NZEMPC 125;Hennessey v Auckland City Council [1981] ACJ 313;Ho v The Chief of Defence Force [2005] ERNZ 93;Manoharan v The Chief Executive of Waiariki Institute of Technology [2011] NZERA Auckland 427 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_497.pdf [pdf 71 KB] |