[2010] NZEmpC 115 Fonterra Cooperative Group Limited v Te Stroet [pdf, 64 KB]
...Fonterra’s consideration of this factor as “little more than lip service”. Further, the Authority concluded that there was no assessment of whether there was any risk of repetition or whether any additional measures or checks could have protected adequately against any risks of enabling Mr Te Stroet to stay employed. The Authority concluded that Fonterra’s procedures were sufficiently robust to identify aberrant activities by technicians. [21] There was a further reason fo...