| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 88 |
| Hearing date | 11 Aug 2011 |
| Determination date | 08 March 2012 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | R Bryant ; K Stretton |
| Location | Tauranga |
| Parties | Burton-Brown v WD & ME Russell Ltd |
| Summary | ARREARS OF WAGES – Applicant claimed respondent failed to make correct commission payments and sought arrears of wages – Parties agreed applicant would be paid retainer and commission – Respondent’s workload significantly increased - Parties agreed that as applicant could not take on additional work other employees would assist – Respondent director (“R”) claimed agreed that any sales generated by other employees would be included in applicant’s commission but some expenses would be deducted to cover other employees’ costs – Applicant claimed only aware of commission deduction when received payslip and attempted to discuss with respondent director (“X”) – Authority found more probable than not that parties agreed that respondent would deduct 5% from sales made by other employees to cover other employees’ costs before paid applicant’s commission – Found no merit in applicant’s claim owed unpaid commission – Applicant claimed did not receive four weeks’ notice of termination of employment – Found more probably than not applicant received four weeks’ notice – No arrears of wages – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s bullying, intimidation and failure to consult about termination of employment - Applicant claimed bullied by respondent at meeting about proposed new commission structure for respondent – Found parties did not meet to discuss proposed new commission structure and applicant’s bullying allegations implausible - X told applicant third party (“C”) would purchase respondent, applicant would no longer be employed by respondent but C wanted to retain current staff – X claimed encouraged C to employ applicant – C claimed offered applicant employment but withdrew offer after applicant made unacceptable counter offer – Found applicant fully aware C would be purchasing respondent and had opportunity to fully participate in transfer process – Applicant claimed when contacted X about commission deduction felt very intimidated and bullied – X denied bullied or intimidated applicant and claimed applicant only asked for further breakdown of deduction – Authority found more probable than not applicant misrepresented parties’ discussion - R unsuccessfully attempted to meet with applicant to discuss performance – X told R to withhold $900 from applicant’s wages so meeting with applicant could be arranged - R claimed applicant swore, shouted at and intimidated R when discovered not paid $900 - Found respondent withholding $900 inappropriate but applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s conduct – Found applicant not bullied or intimidated by respondent – No unjustified disadvantage - Sales Manager |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s114 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_88.pdf [pdf 70 KB] |