OK - there really is little point in arguing about this guys until the point around whether there was two or one cup of drink involved is settled.In one case we have clear intent, the other really is just bad judgement. In the former case, yes, the employer was justified - if somewhat harsh in their treatment of the employee;in the latter case the employee is probably justified in their PG.
But taking the hypothetical of the first case is the PG of the employee still justified - because this really is part of the issue with NZ Labour laws at the moment and why they remain a huge impediment to the growth of NZ companies.
To move to a different scenario (so that I actually know the true circumstances):
We had an (ex)collegue that was so disruptive they had managed to get 3 people to resign in a company of 20.However they were so litigous and CYA oriented that the process of letting them go was drawn out over 6 months.And to prove how unstable they were during the final meeting the employee ended up threatening one of my other colleagues with a stack of glass coasters,and (at least partially) due to the unsettling effects of being stood over by someone yelling at them with a potentially quite harmful object drawn back they stuffed up some of the finer procedural points of that meeting.So to cut what could (and will be if anyone wants more details) be a long story a bit shorter; this person ended up getting paid out around 2 months salary and given a positive reference to their next employer (victim) because their "rights" had been infringed.Never even mind the rights of their collegues to a functional workplace. Because while people bang on about workers rights and rights of criminals etc they often seem to forget that there may be other people having their rights trodden on in the process...
