Compo halved for unjustified firing

A woman who won her case against her employer for unjustified dismissal has had her compensation cut in half.

A bay employer must pay $2500 compensation to a worker who was unjustifiably dismissed.

However, the Employment Relations Authority has ruled Aroha Clark's behaviour also contributed to Goodman Fielder New Zealand Ltd's decision to dismiss her on November 29, 2013 for alleged timesheet fraud.

In a written judgment, the authority ordered the company to pay two months' remuneration less PAYE with a reduction of 50 per cent for Ms Clark's contributory behaviour.

Ms Clark began work as a merchandiser for the company on October 24, 2008.

After two written warnings in November 2012 and September 2013 regarding discrepancies in her timesheets and store sign-in/sign-out sheets, plus lack of adherence to her store call cycle, Ms Clark was called to a disciplinary meeting on November 28, 2013. At the end of the meeting, she was summarily dismissed for serious misconduct.

Ms Clark filed a complaint with the Employment Relations Authority on September 22, 2014.

She told the authority her employer did not sufficiently investigate the allegations and did not give her a reasonable opportunity to respond to their concerns before dismissing her.

Ms Clark asserted a "reconstructed" schedule of her hours were put together during the disciplinary meeting.

Human resources adviser Michelle Thompson told the authority Ms Clark was given "a full, fair and repeated" opportunity to respond and was offered assistance and training but chose to decline those offers.

Authority member Tania Tetitaha found the serious misconduct leading to Ms Clark's dismissal was "timesheet fraud only" but concluded there was insufficient investigation into the allegations.

"I also conclude the respondent's concerns were not properly raised to allow this applicant [Ms Clark] a reasonable opportunity to respond... the information before the applicant and decision-maker at the time was erroneous and inadequate."

Ms Tetitaha ruled that having regard to the disciplinary history between the parties, there was behaviour [by Ms Clark ] which was "both causative and blameworthy" and required a 50 per cent reduction to the award.

Timeline

October 24, 2008: Began work as a merchandiser

November 2012: Disciplinary procedure & first written warning

September 2013: Disciplinary procedure & second written warning

November 10, 2013: Investigation in timesheets and call cycle complaint

November 28, 2013: Disciplinary meeting held and dismissal