| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 133 |
| Hearing date | 27 Mar 2012 - 30 Mar 2012 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 17 April 2012 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | M Moncur ; O Harold |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Wang v AEQ Globe Business Group Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Abandonment – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant abandoned employment - Applicant claimed offered employment but not given written employment agreement (“EA”) or job description – Respondent claimed applicant not given EA as applicant could not read English – Respondent claimed applicant employed subject to 90 day trial period – Applicant claimed explained at job interview had no relevant experience – Respondent claimed received complaints from customers shortly after applicant commenced employment – Respondent manager claimed gave applicant “serious verbal warning” about damaging goods delivered to customer – Applicant delivered further damaged goods – Respondent told applicant if was further damage would be dismissed or trial period would end – Respondent discovered further damaged goods – Applicant claimed not warned about damage to furniture and respondent only told applicant and colleague (“D”) in general terms to be careful when delivering furniture – Respondent acknowledged had not commenced formal disciplinary process – Respondent claimed customer (“X”) had paid applicant $20 for errand when applicant delivered goods – Applicant claimed X pleased with delivery and had given applicant and D $20 to get drink – Applicant claimed unsure if should take money but D said $20 acceptable as tip – Applicant forgot to collect furniture from warehouse – Applicant claimed dismissed by respondent owner (“J”) when returned to warehouse – J denied dismissed respondent and claimed told applicant to temporarily cease working until more stock arrived – J claimed called applicant about coming in to unload stock but applicant said had found other employment – Authority found D’s credibility questionable – Found more likely than not respondent dismissed applicant – Found applicant did not misrepresent skills at job interview – Found respondent did not properly investigate whether applicant had caused damage to furniture – Found fair and reasonable employer would not have concluded applicant caused damage to furniture or applicant dishonest as accepted $20 from X – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - $1,530 reimbursement of lost wages - $5,000 compensation appropriate - PENALTY – Found respondent deliberately failed to provide applicant with written EA - $4,000 penalty appropriate – Applicant claimed respondent failed to provide wage and time records – Found respondent deliberately failed to provide records or pay applicant in timely manner - $3,000 penalty appropriate - Warehouse Management Assistant |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($1,530) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Penalty(failure to provide written employment agreement) ($4,000)($3,500 payable to Crown)($500 payable to applicant ; Penalty(failure to provide wage and time records) ($3,000)($1,500 payable to Crown)($1,500 payable to applicant) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s63A;ERA s65;ERA s65(2)(vi);ERA s103A;ERA s124;ERA s130(4) |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_133.pdf [pdf 65 KB] |