| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 122 |
| Hearing date | 9 Feb 2012 |
| Determination date | 11 April 2012 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | J Wirght (in person) ; C Thomson |
| Location | Rotorua |
| Parties | Wright v V Farms Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant employed on fixed term and employment came to end upon expiry of fixed term – Respondent needed fences at workplace replaced – Respondent required assistant to undertake respondent director’s (“J”) usual duties while fencing work completed - Applicant claimed approached respondent about employment and was offered position – Applicant denied J said position fixed term – Parties used applicant’s previous employment agreement (“EA”) as template – Parties discussed EA terms and amended where required – EA stated employment would end after 12 months - Authority found applicant aware when started employment EA was fixed term – Parties had disagreement about applicant setting up equipment – Applicant claimed J reacted angrily and told applicant employment would terminate on specific date – J claimed only told applicant needed to take more care and reminded applicant later same day that fixed term would end in two months – Found unlikely J reacted angrily and only reminded applicant of termination date later same day – Applicant claimed respondent only enforced fixed term end date as applicant had done something wrong – Applicant told J fixed term unlawful – Found applicant later assumed employment continuous – Respondent confirmed in writing applicant’s employment would end upon expiry of fixed term – J claimed as applicant intended to take annual leave last day would be three weeks before fixed term expiry date – Applicant did not report to work after fixed term expiry – Applicant sent respondent letter month later that fixed term unlawful - Found respondent had genuine reasons for employing applicant on fixed term basis – Found EA complied with ss66(1) and 66(2) Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) and stated start and end dates in compliance with s66(4)(a) – Found reasons for fixed term in EA too vague although parties’ understood reasons for fixed term – Found EA did not comply with s66(4)(b) and respondent could not rely on fixed term to terminate applicant’s employment – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Found reimbursement of lost wages inappropriate - $3,500 compensation appropriate – ARREARS OF WAGES – Applicant sought arrears of wages – Found applicant’s inclusion of arrears of wages claim in statement of evidence inappropriate – Authority accepted respondent’s claim wages had been paid – No arrears of wages – Farm Assistant |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified dismissal) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,500) ; Application dismissed (arrears of wages) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s66;ERA s66(1);ERA s66(2);ERA s66(4)(a);ERA s66(4)(b);ERA s66(6);ERA s66(6)(a) |
| Cases Cited | Shortland v Alexander Construction Company Limited [2010] NZEMPC 41 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_122.pdf [pdf 44 KB] |