Storeman's grievance case against employer fails

Owen Rivers lodged a personal grievance after SCA Hygiene Australasia dismissed him for taking a bucket of bolts. Photo / Supplied

A storeman who worked 40 years at a Kawerau plant then sacked for taking items of little value without permission from his employer has had his personal grievance case dismissed by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).

But in its decision released today the ERA said the decision to dismiss Owen Rivers would appear overly harsh to many people given his long service, the items involved were of little value and the job in a small community with few other job prospects was hugely important, financially and socially.

"However the Authority is not permitted to substitute its own opinion about an appropriate outcome, but only to assess the particular employer's actions and decision against the statutory test of justification."

The ERA said it could not require employers "to be lenient or kindly".

Mr Rivers lodged a personal grievance after SCA Hygiene Australasia (SCA) dismissed him for taking, for his own use, a bucket of bolts that he described as "rubbish", and two disused liquid soap dispensers.

Mr Rivers argued the decision to dismiss, the reasons given and how those decisions were reached were not the actions of a fair and reasonable employer.

SCA had a procedure requiring staff to get permission before taking away surplus items which would not otherwise be recycled or reused by the company.

Staff had to get a "chit" from the company saying the item was of little or no value to the company.

Mr Rivers did not have a chit for two disused soap dispensers he took from the site during May last year and for a bucket of bolts he had taken out into the staff parking area and put on the back of his truck on June 24.

SCA argued that the two incidents amounted to serious misconduct warranting dismissal because Mr Rivers was aware the company had a clear procedure about removing disused or surplus items: that he got a written warning in 2005 for taking some fittings without following proper procedure; and that as a long-service storeman he was in a position of trust with a key responsibility of ensuring property did not leave the store without authorisation.

Mr Rivers also questioned whether his personal circumstances were properly considered and once the decision to dismiss him was reached, whether alternatives to that course of action were fairly explored.

The ERA said that SCA did consider Mr Rivers' long service as a factor in making its ruling. After so long with the company he should have been fully aware of the chit policy and the risks of breaching it.

It also said it did not accept the company failed to consider alternatives to dismissal, and was not obliged to offer Mr Rivers an alternative job.

Mr Rivers' misconduct was serious and went to the root of its trust in him, which the ERA found was reasonable.

It dismissed Mr Rivers' application and ruled that the actions of the SCA in investigating his conduct were not unjustified and he did not have a personal grievance.

- NZPA