Resort to pay out $21,000 over sacking of Manager who denied drug use
A sacked and trespassed resort worker who admitted stealing food but denied allegations of drug use has been awarded $21,000 for unfair dismissal.
However, the luxury resort’s chief executive claims the decision by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) is unjust and he said he was appealing it.
Toni Maheno was employed by Carrington Resort (also known as Carrington Estate) in Northland, originally as a housekeeper, and later managing the estate’s restaurant.
On August 18, 2020, she was called into a disciplinary meeting by her employer, William Tan, CEO of the parent company that owns the resort.
The authority found Maheno was never told it was a disciplinary meeting, according to the decision released this week.
At the meeting, Tan raised concerns about irregularities with till records, but no notes were taken.
Maheno was never given a written list of the allegations levelled against her.
Also at that meeting Maheno admitted taking $187 worth of food. She was suspended pending investigation.
Another meeting was held two days later where further allegations were levelled against her. She was never provided written notice of the allegations and denied them all, the decision said.
She was then asked to take a drug test, which she refused.
Witnesses in the meeting told the authority Maheno became distressed and asked for further information.
She was then dismissed and trespassed from the resort, after refusing to take a drug test and for her admission of theft.
The meeting ended with Maheno crying, while both Tan and Maheno would later accuse each other of yelling during the conversation.
Maheno’s dismissal letter listed allegations including deleting transactions from the till that were unpaid, offering unauthorised discounts, discounting items she was purchasing, and being late to work.
It also alleged she was impaired by drugs while at work.
In a written “announcement” to staff the day after the meeting, Tan told employees Maheno was dismissed for theft, implied she was a drug user, told staff that police were investigating and instructed anyone who saw her on the property to report it to their supervisor and police.
In her complaint to the ERA alleging unjustified dismissal, Maheno strongly denied any drug use, saying the first she had heard of it was at the second disciplinary meeting.
No performance concerns had been raised in her three years at the business, she said.
Maheno told the authority she was “scapegoated” by Tan and used as an example “to frighten other staff by the public humiliation” she suffered.
Tan admitted he had deliberately made an example out of Maheno, but he believed that was justified.
Once Maheno’s complaint was received, the authority ordered Tan to keep all copies of relevant CCTV footage, witness statements, allegation letters, and any other documentation the dismissal relied on.
This evidence was never provided to the authority.
Tan also failed to respond to the authority’s multiple attempts to contact him. His submissions were filed three working days prior to the substantive hearing.
In considering the complaint, the authority found multiple allegations levelled by Tan were untrue.
There was no evidence he had referred the allegations to police, despite him telling other staff he had.
Maheno’s dismissal letter stated she admitted to stealing two meals from the restaurant — but the authority found there was no evidence Maheno admitted to that.
The authority criticised Tan’s evidence and said he was someone who “rigidly held to his stated position, regardless of evidence to the contrary. That approach undermined his credibility.”
That evidence included comments from witnesses that staff were provided free meals, despite Tan denying it.
The authority concluded the process for dismissing Maheno was procedurally unfair, allegations against her were not adequately investigated and she was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
While her admission of theft would ordinarily be grounds for dismissal, other allegations levelled were not proven.
She later repaid the cost of the food in full.
The authority found the dismissal was justified, but “the way [the company] went about addressing its disciplinary concerns and the manner in which it dismissed her was wrong, fundamentally unfair and contrary to its good faith obligations”.
Maheno was not entitled to a claim of lost income due to the dismissal being justified, but was entitled to emotional reparation after the announcement to staff — a “serious breach” of Maheno’s privacy, the authority found.
Carrington Resort was ordered to pay $30,000 in compensation for unjustified disadvantage, reduced to $21,000 after a 30 per cent reduction to recognise Maheno’s misconduct.