Man wins $9000 compensation for unfair dismissal

Peter David Hall was dismissed after a disciplinary investigation, allegations included browsing prostitution websites and running up excessive bills for food and drink while dining with Thai escorts. Photo / Thinkstock

A man who was fired for inappropriate behaviour on a work trip to Thailand, including racking up expenses while dining with female escorts, has won his claim of unfair dismissal.

Peter David Hall worked for Dionex PTY Ltd (DPL) from 2004 until 2011, when he was dismissed after a disciplinary investigation into his behaviour on the training trip.

The allegations included browsing prostitution websites and running up excessive bills for food and drink while dining with Thai escorts.

An Employment Court decision said he had also stored two photographs of a topless Thai woman, with her back to the camera, on his laptop. The company also obtained photographs of Mr Hall with Thai women who were wearing Dionex T-shirts.

Dionex, a supplier of scientific equipment, was bought by Thermo Fisher New Zealand Ltd (TFNZL) shortly before Mr Hall was fired in December 2011.

Mr Hall's claim centred around whether it was legal for a TFNZL employee to conduct the disciplinary process which led to his dismissal.

In December 2011, he was called to a meeting with a TFNZL manager and suspended pending the outcome of the investigation.

At that time, the company had not yet taken statements from other staff, examined Mr Hall's laptop, or obtained credit card statements.

In a subsequent disciplinary meeting, Mr Hall said he came across the websites when searching for "therapeutic massage", because he had aches and pains.

He said he may have taken the photographs of the Thai woman some years previously, but disputed whether they were offensive or in breach of the company policy.

Mr Hall said his spending on food and drink while in the company of Thai escorts was authorised by managers.

He was dismissed the day after the meeting.

Employment Court Judge Christina Inglis found Mr Hall was employed by DPL at the time of the dismissal, and that an employer cannot pass responsibility for disciplinary action to a non-employee.

The court found the company had made other breaches of process, including pressuring Mr Hall to conclude matters by December 23, instead of allowing more time until his lawyer had returned from Christmas break.

The suspension and dismissal were found to be unjustified.

The company was ordered to pay Mr Hall six months' salary, plus interest and an agreed amount of commission, and $9000 compensation - reduced from $18000 for Mr Hall's contribution to his dismissal.