Pushpinder Sandhu lost his job after throwing ball of dough, but won back $8191

A baker lost his job after flicking a small ball of dough at a colleague while the man operated a machine. Photo / File

A baker unjustifiably dismissed after flicking a ball of dough at a colleague has been awarded more than $8000 by the Employment Relations Authority.

But Pushpinder Sandhu was partly to blame for his dismissal from Loaf Ltd in Auckland in September last year, authority member Nicola Craig found in a decision released in May.

Sandhu had been working at the bakery factory in Penrose for five months and had already received a verbal warning regarding food safety when he was seen by a human resources manager flicking the small ball of dough at a colleague on September 6.

Sandhu was spoken to by the HR manager, who brought in bread operations manager Elliott Cheesmur, who brought in owner and director Sean Armstrong.

The authority heard that in a meeting outside the staff break-room where other staff members could have heard, Sandhu was asked by Armstrong: "Why are you throwing dough in my f***ing bakery?"

Sandhu told the authority it had been a joke and he had seen other bakers, including supervisors, throwing dough balls daily, mostly at night.

Armstrong and Cheesmur were not aware dough throwing occurred.

The reason dough throwing was considered so serious by Loaf was because of contamination including allergens such as sesame seeds, and that if a person operating machinery was distracted it could cause an accident.

Several years earlier there had been a finger injury to a baker operating the same machine Sandhu's colleague was operating when Sandhu threw the dough at him.

But when he didn't offer an explanation in the meeting Sandhu was told he was suspended and had 30 seconds to leave the building.

Armstrong told the authority he was worried about a food safety audit the next day and did not want a disgruntled employee turning up so he told Sandhu he risked being trespassed if he came back.

"Mr Sandhu says that he was completely shocked and scared," the decision reads.

Craig said the meeting outside the break-room was not ideal and was conducted with the parties standing up.

"My impression was of a hurried event undertaken without the opportunity of a cooling down period.

"This provides a background against which misunderstandings, particularly with an employee who does not have English as their first language, are more likely."

She said although Loaf had reason to suspend, the process was carried out unfairly and Sandhu was disadvantaged by Loaf when it suspended him.

Sandhu said he left thinking he had been dismissed, so when an email from the HR manager arrived the next day asking him to attend a disciplinary meeting on September 8, he did not expect it and did not see it until later that night.

Sandhu did not attend the Friday morning meeting and did not answer calls from the HR manager or Cheesmur.

When Loaf did not hear back from Sandhu by 3pm his employment was terminated.

On September 12 Sandhu lodged a personal grievance claim.

Craig concluded the dismissal procedure was fair because Sandhu did not respond in time, but she did not consider the dough flicking amounted to serious misconduct, but rather misconduct only.

For that reason the dismissal was unfair.

Craig said the audit, which Sandhu knew about, was understandably a pressure point for Loaf but seemed to have influenced the level of response.

"Having given a verbal warning a month before for a food safety and hygiene concern, I do not think it reasonable that a somewhat similar matter would be seen as so deeply impairing trust that it justified a summary dismissal."

Sandhu claimed three months' lost wages of $9880 and $15,000 for hurt and humiliation.

Craig awarded him $3776 in lost wages, $113 for KiwiSaver contributions and $302 holiday pay, totalling $4191.

Sandhu was also awarded $4000 for loss of dignity and injury to feeling, partly because his actions were "causative of the outcome and blameworthy".

"The fact that others may not have behaved in the right way [when they threw dough] cannot entirely excuse Mr Sandhu from blame, particularly when he was aware of the audit the following day.

"I conclude that Mr Sandhu's actions were blameworthy and contributed to the situation giving rise to his dismissal."

Costs were reserved.