| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 54 |
| Hearing date | 4 Oct 2011 |
| Determination date | 30 March 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | R Thompson ; M Prisk |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | McGregor v Waimakariri District Council |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant not dismissed as casual employee – Parties’ employment agreement (“EA”) stated applicant’s position casual – Applicant initially employed to cover absent employee (“X”) but continued working for respondent two weeks after X returned – Applicant claimed no longer employed on casual basis - Applicant had meeting with respondent manager (“P”) and senior animal control officer (“G”) - Applicant claimed P said applicant would continue to work same hours and respondent would help applicant gain animal control officer qualifications so could apply for fulltime position – P claimed only told applicant respondent short-staffed and hoped to employ another animal control officer fulltime – P claimed asked applicant if wanted to continue employment until Christmas, did not discuss training and suggested applicant apply for fulltime position if funding approved – G claimed applicant’s employment extended as G taking leave but no discussion with applicant of what would happen after Christmas – P sent applicant letter stating employment would be extended to Christmas only but if fulltime position established after respondent’s review applicant encouraged to apply – Applicant claimed believed review referred to review of hours not whether employment continued - Applicant questioned respondent about training and claimed respondent’s responses confusing – P and G met with applicant just before Christmas – Applicant claimed unaware meeting about whether applicant’s employment continued – Applicant claimed P said was no more work for applicant - G and P denied escorting applicant from premises but acknowledged applicant seemed shocked and upset after meeting – Authority found when employment started respondent expected applicant to be available on particular days although hours worked flexible – Found applicant employed on fixed term arrangement not casual and therefore applicant dismissed – Found respondent could not rely on fixed term relationship to justify dismissal as EA did not set out when or why fixed term would end – Found EA did not comply with s66 Employment Relations Act 2000 - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Found appropriate to treat reinstatement as primary remedy – Found reinstatement not practicable - $2,924 reimbursement of lost wages - $4,000 compensation appropriate - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged as respondent prevented applicant from completing training – Respondent denied agreed would provide applicant training – Found respondent did not offer applicant training – No unjustified disadvantage – ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY – Applicant sought arrears of holiday pay - Respondent to pay applicant holiday pay in accordance with EA if had not done so already - Assistant Animal Control Officer |
| Result | Applications granted (unjustified dismissal and arrears of holiday pay) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,924.10) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Arrears of holiday pay (quantum to be determined if applicable) ; Application dismissed (unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s66;ERA s103A;ERA s103A(a);ERA s103A(b);ERA s103A(c);ERA s103A(d);ERA s125;ERA s128(2);Holidays Act 2003;Interpretation Act 1999 s4;Interpretation Act 1999 s7 |
| Cases Cited | Barnes v Whangarei Returned Services Association (Inc) [1997] ERNZ 626;Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd [2009] ERNZ 225 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_54.pdf [pdf 55 KB] |