A storeman fired in March 2008 after an unproven accusation of dealing marijuana at work has won $8000 in an Employment Relations Authority ruling.
Hearing rumours of drug-dealing in the workplace, managers from Christchurch-based company Lyttelton Engineering installed hidden video cameras to film the company's employees.
Interpreting footage of Troy
Henry giving a plastic bag to a colleague as the hand-over of marijuana, the company talked to Mr Henry, the suspected recipient and a third colleague, who saw the transaction.
Mr Henry flatly denied selling drugs when called to a meeting following the suspected transaction, saying he was loaning cash to a workmate whose bank card was broken.
At the meeting, Mr Henry invited the company to have police search his locker, car and house. The company did not take him up on the offer, the authority said.
During their talk with Mr Henry, company representatives said he was "sweating profusely and appeared nervous and ill at ease", with the company's general manager reporting "rivers of sweat" coming off him.
Mr Henry said he had a metabolic problem, which he supported with medical evidence.
At two more meetings, Mr Henry said he had loaned cash to his colleague, showing receipts and evidence he had previously helped out his colleagues.
At the first meeting his colleague, Tim Benvin, denied borrowing money or anything else from Mr Henry.
Later that day Mr Benvin admitted he borrowed money from Mr Henry.
The authority suggested he was caught off guard and panicked, as he suspected he was being involved in allegations of wrong-doing.
When interviewed by the authority, Mr Benvin said he had borrowed money but had never bought drugs from Mr Henry, and was "troubled" by managers at Lyttelton Engineering telling his new employer he was a drug user.
All three men denied they had conspired to hatch a story, insisting money was the only thing that had changed hands.
At a third meeting with his managers, Mr Henry was fired.
The authority found Mr Henry had been unjustifiably dismissed and had not contributed in any way to circumstances giving rise to his personal grievance.
It ordered his former employer to pay him $2500 in compensation and $5500 in lost wages.
- NZPA
