[ad_1]
Maarten Holl / Things
Michael Saunders was a business development manager at Noel Leeming.
An employee who was overpaid by the Noel Leeming Group while on ACC-funded leave was ordered to reimburse $ 14,768.
Michael Saunders worked for the company, a subsidiary of The Warehouse Group, since late 2017.
In December 2018, he suffered an accident outside of work and was on leave until March 21, 2019.
When he returned, it was identified that he may have been overpaid an estimated $ 14,900 in his spare time.
READ MORE:
* ‘This is going to be a rough ride’: More stores likely to close as 1080 jobs are up for grabs, Warehouse Group CEO says
* The construction company will pay $ 17,000 to the constructor with a drinking problem
* Charges against Noel Leeming a nail in the coffin for some retailers, says expert
He was subsequently fired, which will take effect on November 16, 2020.
Despite mediation, he and his employer were unable to resolve the overpayment issue.
Noel Leeming Group approached the Labor Relations Authority seeking a statement that Saunders had breached his implied duty of loyalty and an order to return the money in full and on reasonable terms.
Saunders initially filed a statement in response and participated in a case management conference held over the phone, but subsequently failed to respond to emails or adhere to established hours for submitting documents, said Nicola Craig, a member of the Labor Relations Authority.
He did not attend a second case management conference.
Craig said that Saunders had indicated that he accepted the amount claimed, but would have difficulty paying it.
The parties agreed that the matter would be determined on paper.
STUFF
How the Labor Relations Authority works.
Noel Leeming Group said its managers had kept in contact with Saunders by phone, text and email when he was on leave.
He was given the company’s sick leave policy and reminded to contact ACC.
But when he returned to work, it was noted that he had been receiving his normal salary, as well as ACC payments.
Eventually, his salary was suspended and then a meeting was held in which Saunders objected and questioned the legality of that measure, as determined by Craig.
He said he was unaware that both his salary and the ACC had paid him. He offered to return $ 100 a month.
Noel Leeming Group agreed to re-evaluate the figures and arranged a manual transfer of his salary. A few weeks later, it was confirmed that he had been overpaid $ 14,768.54.
The company suggested full payment in two months or a payment plan of $ 1,000 per month to be deducted from Saunders’ salary. No agreement was reached.
Craig said the Noel Leeming Group question was whether it was dishonest conduct toward an employer.
The company said Saunders should have known he was receiving an amount that it said would be 180 percent of his regular salary. Craig said he had no evidence to back that up.
Saunders argued that he believed he was entitled to a commission for large projects that had come to fruition while he was on leave, and he understood that he had been paid that money, not his salary.
“He thought he was entitled to the money and he didn’t think the company would make a mistake when he was doing what he was asked to do, that is, providing medical certificates to his manager.”
He was also paid through an incentive scheme.
Craig said that, given the evidence of other possible payments and that Saunders was taking heavy medication and hospitalized during his time away from work, it was not established that he had breached his duty of fidelity.
She said he should pay the $ 14,768.54 in installments of $ 200 a month.
Costs reserved.
