A Dunedin employer has been ordered to pay $6,000 compensation to a former employer after the man was dismissed following a string of unusual behaviour.
Brodie Halliday was fired from Regent Night ‘n’ Day Foodstore after working at the retailer for just 10 months – the dismissal came after a manager found a bizarre note written by Halliday.
The note, referring to a banoffee pie, read: “I swear to God that if you throw this out I will open my jaw and swallow you like a snake.”
Halliday told the
Employment Relations Authority that everyone was aware of his “weird sense of humour” and would never have taken the threat seriously.
He also claimed he had been unfairly disadvantaged in his employment because he had been forced to continue working with another employee who had verbally abused him.
However, his employer – Lane Group – said the note was just one example of unacceptable behaviour by Halliday.
The company claimed Halliday frequently arrived late, failed to complete many of his assigned tasks, would not follow instructions, loitered on the premises after the end of his shift and displayed unprofessional behaviour by using till slips as a scarf and hat during the work day.
The employee accused of verbally assaulting Halliday also denied doing so – however, she did acknowledge saying “F*** this I’m going home" after becoming frustrated with training Halliday.
She also said Halliday would sometimes sit on the floor and refused to make sandwiches the way he had been instructed to.
Ultimately, the ERA ruled Lane Group did not follow its policy over performance issues.
"Some of the reasons for dismissal had not been put to Mr Halliday or put inadequately,” the decision read. “A decision to dismiss as a result was not one accordingly that a fair and reasonable employer could have reached in all the circumstances."
The ERA also said Lane Group did not set out a timetable allowing Halliday to address performance concerns as set out by its own handbook.
"There needed to be some objective measurement,” read the decision. “In accordance with the policy in the handbook about work performance and rule breaking a fair and reasonable employer could have been expected to have considered a written warning which incorporated all the previous incidents where an explanation was not found to be acceptable."
Related stories:
