A Mount Maunganui man who claimed watching pornography at work was not a serious misconduct has lost an appeal against his dismissal.

Reginald Hiha claims his former employer Crane Distribution Limited dismissed him unjustifiably from his position as storeman at Mico Bathrooms in Mount Maunganui in August last year.

Reginald Hiha was fired from Mico Bathrooms in Mount Maunganui for watching porn on the computer during work hours.

He sought compensation and reimbursement for lost wages from the Employment Relations Authority.

ERA found the dismissal was justified and his employer had complied with its responsibilities in firing the storeman.

Reginald Hiha accessed used the internet at work to look at pornography sites despite being aware Crane Distribution regarded watching pornography on work computers during office hours as a serious misconduct.

Reginald was employed as the storeman at the Mount Maunganui Mico Bathrooms store where his job involved dealing with inward goods.

As part of his job he used the work computer system to enter details regarding inwards goods, stock control, deliveries.

He also had access to the internet through Crane's computer system.

The ERA ruling states that in May 2011 Reginald began watching pornography on the work computer and continued doing this on a regular basis for the next three months.

On August 8 a woman colleague at the Mount store reported Reginald was watching porn at work to the branch manager.

The company obtained a report on his internet usage that confirmed the complaint and provided a list of webpages accessed and the times. A majority of the access was to view porn.

The branch manager presented the report to Reginald and requested a meeting on August 16, seeking an explanation.

Reginald accepted the reports on his internet use and did not deny he had been viewing pornography on the internet during work hours for about three months.

He accepted this was wrong and that he was aware of Crane's internet policy and had probably signed the policy.

The branch manager decided that it was necessary to initiate a disciplinary process.

The manager wrote to Reginald requesting a formal disciplinary meeting on August 22, 2011. At that meeting Reginald was told the company viewed his behaviour as serious misconduct and that disciplinary action would be taken.

He was dismissed in a letter dated August 24. Despite the dismissal being immediate, Crane paid Reginald one month's wages in lieu of notice.

Reginald argued that Crane's policies should have set out which type of pornography was serious and could result in dismissal and which was less serious and could result in rights to internet access being removed.

A similar argument was raised in respect of what amount of personal use would be regarded as serious.

ERA member Anna Fitzgibbon did not accept the argument.

The ERA ruling stated Crane's policy sets out the categories of conduct which Crane considers unacceptable including internet sites that contain pornographic, obscene, hateful or other objectionable materials; and using company email and internet systems for excessive, inappropriate, or high volume personal use.

The test of the appeal is whether the employer's actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred.

The nature of the pornography accessed by Reginald is a key factor.

'One of the reports I viewed contains 164 images depicting images of naked women, naked women and men in lewd poses and performing sex acts. The images are graphic and objectionable,” says Anna.

'Mr Hiha says he was not aware that his conduct could be regarded as serious misconduct despite what, he agreed, is set out in the code of conduct, employment agreement and internet and email policy. I find this hard to believe.”

ERA ruled the dismissal was a decision open to a fair and reasonable employer in the circumstances.

It found Crane sufficiently investigated the allegations and raised its concerns with Reginald before dismissal, giving him reasonable opportunity to respond before dismissal; and whether the employer genuinely considered the employee's explanation before dismissal.

Crane complied with the obligations, and she found the dismissal justified.