| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 40 |
| Hearing date | 28 Feb 2012 |
| Determination date | 12 April 2012 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | A Connor ; R Choy |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Hill v Bernadette Enterprise Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Parties’ employment agreement (EA") included 12 week probationary period – Respondent manager (“C”) mistakenly believed as applicant had not worked for respondent for three months respondent could terminate applicant’s employment or change applicant's employment status and be exempt from personal grievance proceedings – C received complaints from another employer (“X”) that applicant regularly arrived for work late – X mistakenly believed applicant started earlier than as stated in parties' EA – Authority accepted applicant’s evidence not regularly late – Applicant denied received letter from C that respondent had unilaterally changed applicant’s employment status to casual – Applicant denied received second letter from C had been dismissed – Applicant not told dismissed until three weeks later when respondent told applicant could not come into work anymore but could continue working for respondent next month if resident numbers increased – Respondent resident numbers increased but C did not offer applicant further employment – Authority found respondent mistakenly relied on 90 day trial period that did not apply to parties’ EA and incorrectly believed could unilaterally change terms of applicant’s employment without consultation – Found applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions and dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - $994 reimbursement of lost wages - $3,000 compensation appropriate - ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY – Applicant sought arrears of wages and holiday pay - Respondent failed to pay applicant final pay – Respondent claimed did not pay applicant final wages as applicant did not return uniform – Applicant claimed as did not take uniform home did not have uniform when told not to return to work – Found applicant unable to return uniform to respondent – Respondent to pay applicant $229 arrears of wages and $79 arrears of holiday pay – Interest payable - Tea Girl" |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($994.50) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Arrears of wages ($229.50) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($79.56) ; Interest (5%) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s65(2)(vi);ERA s69OJ |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_40.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |