ERA sides with employer in dismissing employee for serious misconduct
A long-serving Farmers employee who misused her staff discount by allowing others to fund discounted purchases was justifiably dismissed, the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has ruled.
The ERA found that The Farmers Trading Company Limited (Farmers) acted as a fair and reasonable employer when it dismissed the worker, referred to as "DLH" under a non‑publication order.
Breaching staff discount promo
DLH, a sales and service assistant employed since 2013, was dismissed for serious misconduct after an internal investigation into several purchases made on April 21, 2024, during a staff cardholder promotion.
The promotion set out discounts of up to 50% for a wide range of products, but required that the holder of the staff discount card or their nominated second cardholder must pay for the purchases.
On that day, DLH used her staff discount card for three transactions totalling $612.29 after discount.
But for the first two purchases, she used cash provided by her daughter and her daughter's partner, who were with her in the store.
The third transaction involved a child's car seat with a retail price of around $900. After discount, it cost just under $450 and was paid for using three gift cards.
An investigation by Farmers found that one of the gift cards had been purchased by Ms C, a cousin of the daughter's partner, and the remaining two by another customer who shared Ms C's surname.
Further checks showed earlier occasions where DLH had used gift cards purchased by Ms C to make staff‑discounted purchases.
Farmers alleged serious misconduct, relying on its staff discount policy, which states: "A Team Member must pay for the purchased goods themselves; it is considered serious misconduct if a friend or family member pays for the goods on the Team Members behalf."
"Any misuse/abuse of the card (or the policy) will result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal."
Was the dismissal justified?
DLH argued her behaviour was "an isolated lapse of judgement, not deliberate dishonesty."
She claimed that the cash was a gift from her daughter and partner, and that she had contributed some of the money loaded onto the gift cards. She maintained that a warning or withdrawal of discount privileges would have been a more appropriate response.
The ERA rejected that argument. While it accepted there was a plausible case that the first two transactions could be seen as a hasty or careless mistake, it found the conduct could not be treated as a one‑off error.
The car seat purchase, arranged with Ms C and funded in part by her gift cards, was described as "not inadvertent or the result of an unexpected surprise."
"DLH and Ms C had arranged for Ms C to visit the store to select and collect the car seat and Ms C had brought with her the gift cards to be used to pay for it," the ERA said.
The Authority further noted that DLH had signed a written acknowledgement of the policy, understood that breaches "will be deemed to be serious misconduct," and had recently completed in‑house training which reinforced the rules.
It also noted that during the disciplinary process, she admitted she had "got it wrong" and later emailed management that she "did abuse" her staff discount privileges.
The ERA also found no flaws in process. Farmers informed DLH of the allegations, provided relevant documents, made CCTV footage available, allowed representation by her union, and gave her the chance to respond before confirming the decision to terminate.
"[Farmers] has established that it acted as a fair and reasonable employer could have done in investigating concerns about DLH's conduct, concluding she committed serious misconduct and deciding to dismiss her," the ERA ruled.
"DLH's personal grievance application to the Authority is declined."
