David Hannah worked for two years at The Salvation Army Furniture Store in Gisborne before being sacked.
A Salvation Army worker was sacked after he shoved a colleague and used a derogatory slur during a discussion that became “heated” about the furniture store’s management.
David Hannah had been working for The Salvation Army furniture store in Gisborne for about two years and said he enjoyed the work.
After he was sacked, he went to the Employment Relations Authority, claiming wrongful dismissal, but it has upheld The Salvation Army’s decision.
The issues began when Hannah became concerned the best furniture was being taken from his store by his team leader and put in the nearby larger Salvation Army Family Store.
This affected his sales targets and made him suspicious there was a plot to close the furniture store and he was being kept in the dark.
According to a recently released ERA decision, he raised concerns and was told there were no plans to close the store but he and his team leader got to the point where they were no longer speaking.
It came to a head when team leader Ronele Greary and the Family Store team leader Jaye Pomana turned up one day to discuss things with him.
He said he felt “entrapped”, particularly after Pomana had asked a customer to leave the store, leaving the shop empty but for the three staff.
Things started to get heated, Hannah didn’t want to speak and tried to leave.
He went out the back but Pomana followed him, pushing open the door as he tried to hold it shut.
According to the decision, Hannah went back inside, got his keys and, as he left, he shoved her in the chest.
As he took off on his motorbike, he also allegedly called her a “derogatory slur”.
The Salvation Army carried out a disciplinary process over three main issues: that he’d failed to follow instructions from his team leader when he was asked to discuss things, physical abuse against a co-worker, and use of abusive language and threatening behaviour.
Hannah was sacked but went to the ERA as he thought a lesser consequence, such as a warning, would have been more appropriate.
However, the authority found his “admitted actions” of physical violence and abusive language towards a co-worker justified his dismissal.
“Physical violence in the workplace is commonly considered to be a form of serious misconduct sufficient to justify dismissal.
“Abusive language may also justify dismissal, and again this is accepted by Mr Hannah to have occurred here, in a way which supports, intensifies, and personalises the physical assault,” ERA member Claire English said.
“I note that Mr Hannah denied using other abusive language and swear words, but after hearing the evidence, my view is that it is more likely than not that this occurred as well.”
She said Hannah must take responsibility for the consequences of his admitted actions and the role he played in what unfolded.
“He, by his own account, both accepted that Ms Geary was his team leader, and stated that he was refusing to talk to her in the workplace,” the decision said.
“He cannot then complain that another team leader who was already known to him and had some shared responsibilities relating to his work, came to speak with him.”
English said both team leaders had the right to speak with him in the workplace about work matters.
Hannah told NZME he felt let down by the ERA process and was “shocked” at the findings.
He was concerned CCTV footage of the incident wasn’t viewed at the two ERA hearings.
“I felt that was wrong because three times in the video, I moved away from the person to dissolve the situation. It wasn’t even mentioned in the findings at all.”
He believed the footage provided the necessary context, saying he felt he was “pursued” through the building and backyard before “pushing past the person”.
“I had to leave the building because I felt threatened,” he said, adding the team leader was bigger and taller than he was.
He said his experience was that when things became heated, the best way to handle it was by “removing yourself or the other person from the situation”.
Hannah said he didn’t want to speak with either leader as he’d felt caught off guard and entrapped when they arrived unannounced; he’d wanted a support person with him.
He said he didn’t understand why two of them had to come to the store to return a bookings’ book and phone, and he had no obligation to speak with Pomana as she wasn’t his boss.
He felt they were trying to “force him into an employment discussion” and he’d felt bullied.
He added he’d never had any complaints from customers at the store.
However, the ERA decision said it was Hannah’s “own refusal to communicate effectively” with Greary that prompted the involvement of Pomana, another team leader.
English said it was apparent in Hannah’s evidence that he had “formed a distrust of Ms Geary, Ms Pomana, and the regional manager, and his repeated comments about Ms Pomana’s appearance suggest a personal dislike, but there was no apparent reason for this”.
The ERA decision concluded The Salvation Army gave Hannah a “reasonable opportunity” to respond to concerns and did consider his explanations.
Hannah’s personal grievance claim of unjustified dismissal was “not made out”.
National director of Family Stores at The Salvation Army, Gareth Marshall, said the organisation regretted the “employment relationship did not conclude on positive terms”.
“However, we welcome the Employment Relations Authority’s decision, which confirms that The Salvation Army followed fair, transparent, and legally sound processes throughout,” he said.
“We remain committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and fairness in all our employment practices.”
Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.