| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 178 |
| Hearing date | 2 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 18 November 2011 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | P Cranney ; N McPhail |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Weti and Anor v Warehouse Ltd |
| Other Parties | O'Brien |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct - Applicants claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicants abused discount – Applicants invited to attend disciplinary meeting – Second applicant (“O”) acknowledged friends and family not entitled to discount but claimed did not intend to rip respondent off – First applicant (“W”) claimed thought discount could be used by immediate family – W claimed W intended to purchase items and son would then pay for items – Authority found W’s evidence contradicted acceptance that son initially sought to purchase items and items were for son – Applicants dismissed – Applicants claimed penalty severe given offence – Applicants claimed outcome predetermined – Applicants claimed major flaws in process – Respondent claimed breach was undisputed and no longer had trust in either applicant – Found O never had opportunity to respond to respondent’s views – Found fact that respondent lost trust and confidence in O never put to O until after preliminary verdict made – Found respondent did not act with open mind – Found respondent stated that if rules broken, employees were out – O’s dismissal unjustified – Found respondent predetermined W’s dismissal – W’s dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – 50 percent contributory conduct by O – Authority dealt with reinstatement as primary remedy because amendment to legislation not to be applied retrospectively – Respondent opposed reinstatement due to high degree of contribution – Found contribution did not preclude reinstatement – O reinstated – $5,966 reimbursement of lost wages appropriate – Found amount to be reduced by any wages received by O during specified period – $1,000 compensation appropriate – 50 percent contributory conduct by W – Found W did not accept breached rules – Found excuse offered implausible – Found reinstatement impracticable – $3,689 reimbursement of lost wages appropriate - $1,000 compensation appropriate |
| Result | Applications granted ; Contributory conduct (50%) ; Reinstatement ordered (Second applicant) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (quantum to be determined)(Second applicant) ($3,689.40)(First applicant); Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000 reduced to $1,000)(First and Second applicants) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3)(c);ERA s124;ERA s125;Interpretation Act 1999 s4;Interpretation Act 1999 s7 |
| Cases Cited | Glengarry Hancocks v Madden [1998] 3 ERNZ 361 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_178.pdf [pdf 72 KB] |