JGP v JGQ

JGP v JGQ arose from Employment Claims Tribunals Claim Nos 11019 and 11021 of 2024. The claimant, Ms C, joined the respondent on 16 September 2021 on a contract with three months' notice. In December 2023 the respondent's group began reviewing staff medical claims at a clinic called Clinic X, where employees appeared to have been reimbursed for retail goods outside the Medical Claims Policy. In 2023 Ms C had lodged 62 claims totalling $9,989.64, mostly for vitamins, supplements and skincare, without seeing a doctor there. She said colleagues and clinic staff told her non-itemised receipts under $200 were claimable, and offered to repay.

Employees were sorted into tiers by the number and value of claims. Ms C fell into the heaviest tier, Group D, and went before a Disciplinary Committee on 20 March 2024. It found an intentional and dishonest breach but, given her junior role, clean record and repayment, first recommended a warning and a 100% reduction of her 2023 bonus. After the Global Head of HR, Ms A, queried that leniency, a majority of the committee recommended termination instead. Ms C was given notice on 18 April 2024, later replaced by salary in lieu, and her employment ended on 24 May 2024. Ms A declined to convene an Appeal Committee for her internal appeal. Employees in a lower tier, Group C2, had their inquiries cancelled and received warnings and bonus cuts instead.

Ms C claimed $25,998 for wrongful dismissal under s 14(2) of the Employment Act 1968 and $13,000 as her 2023 bonus. Hers was one of six related cases heard separately by the same tribunal magistrate, with full grounds written only for hers. The tribunal also allowed the claimants' application to summon Ms A to give oral evidence.

1. Whether due inquiry under s 14(1) applies to a misconduct dismissal with notice, and whether it was met
2. Whether the respondent proved the stated dishonesty and, if not, whether a lesser wrong gave just cause or excuse
3. How compensation for loss of income and harm should be assessed
4. Whether Ms C was entitled to a performance bonus for 2023

The tribunal treated a s 14(2) claim as a statutory wrong distinct from the contractual action, decided afresh on the evidence, with the employer's disciplinary rules serving only as evidence. Because s 14(1) ties due inquiry to the ground of misconduct, not to summary dismissal, an employer relying on misconduct must hold one even if it pays notice. That was met here: Ms C had clear notice of the charges, an interview and a hearing, and the committee gave written reasons. The statute confers no right to an internal appeal.

As the letter stated reasons, s 27(2)(b) of the Employment Claims Act 2016 put the burden on the respondent to show both truth and sufficiency. Frequent claims without consultation, clustered just below $200, fitted a widespread misunderstanding as well as deliberate abuse. There was no ignored warning, concealment or admission, and Ms C offered to repay. The committee had called her "simple-minded" and first proposed a warning; its change followed Ms A's request, not new evidence. Dishonesty, recklessness and wilful blindness were not proved.

A lesser wrong was proved: negligently making impermissible claims by relying on practice instead of the policy. It had been fairly put to her, but it did not justify dismissal given the systemic practice, her junior role and record, and the warnings and bonus cuts given to comparable employees, the respondent itself reserving termination for dishonesty.

Ms C stayed unemployed far longer than three months and showed the dismissal had cost her opportunities, so she received the capped three months of pay; salary in lieu covered the notice period, not the later shortfall, and was not deducted. For harm, the two-month base was cut by one month for her negligent contribution.

The bonus was discretionary and had not accrued; weighing conduct was not bad faith, and it could not count as lost income because it would have been nil anyway, was uncertain, and the cap was exhausted.

The tribunal allowed Ms C's claims in part. It held that she had been dismissed without just cause or excuse under s 14(2) and awarded her $12,999 for loss of income and $4,333 for harm, a total of $17,332, but dismissed the claim for the 2023 performance bonus. It also awarded costs of $1,000 and disbursements of $70, and ordered the sum of $18,402 to be paid within 14 days of its judgment on 16 September 2025.