ERA upholds dismissal of shift manager at security firm
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has ruled that a former shift manager at a national security company was justifiably dismissed following revelations he had misused company time and resources, including watching movies while on shift.
The employee filed a personal grievance after being terminated in February 2024, alleging that his dismissal was unjust and that the disciplinary process was flawed and biased.
However, the ERA found that the employer had both substantive and procedural justification for ending his employment.
"In all the circumstances at the relevant time I find that dismissing [the employee] was a decision a fair and reasonable employer could have taken," the ERA ruled.
The employer raised concerns after observing that the employee failed to complete expected site visits, used company vehicles for personal tasks without authorisation, and repeatedly spent extended time at residential addresses during shifts.
The Authority noted that the employee had failed to provide clear explanations for his conduct.
The employee admitted during an internal meeting that he would sometimes watch movies in his car while on duty. He also justified the use of company vehicles for personal errands, including attending physiotherapy sessions, without prior approval.
The employer expressed concerns over these explanations, noting that the role was not a work-from-home position.
"So, any time he was away from work meant he was not performing his role," the employer noted, as recorded in the ERA document.
The use of a company vehicle for personal use was also a breach of company policy, and the lack of approval for the physiotherapy sessions meant that no one would cover his shift and substitute for him should an incident arise, according to the employer.
As a result of the investigation, the employer believed that the employee had damaged the trust and confidence placed in him.
The employee apologised after receiving notice that his actions constituted serious misconduct and that termination was an appropriate outcome.
His general manager, however, did not change the tentative view and confirmed termination in February 2024.
In its ruling, the ERA determined that the employer had conducted a fair and reasonable process.
According to the ERA, the company met all the procedural requirements set out in the Employment Relations Act 2000.
"I find that [the employer] conducted a robust investigation conducted in accordance with the requirements of good faith," the ERA ruled.
It also rejected the employee's claims that the process was biased, including arguments related to his English language proficiency, noting he was able to participate and respond throughout.
The Authority also dismissed a secondary claim of unjustified disadvantage, concluding that the employee had not suffered any unfair detriment beyond the lawful termination.
"I find that [the employer] had substantive justification to consider dismissing [the employee], and it reached that conclusion following a fair and reasonable process," the ERA ruled. "In all the circumstances at the relevant time, I find that dismissing [the employee] was a decision a fair and reasonable employer could have taken."
