| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA AUckland 167 |
| Hearing date | 15 Mar 2012 |
| Determination date | 16 March 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | M Katash (in person) ; G Stone |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Katash v Raffles College of Design and COmmerce (New Zealand) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIABLE DISMISSAL – Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant instructed to update respondent’s information (“task”) – Applicant interrupted task to attend scheduled meeting – Applicant argued with manager (“N”) after suggested another employee could complete task – Applicant claimed N warned applicant not to call respondent’s chief executive officer about argument because applicant close to being dismissed – Respondent claimed applicant’s failure to follow instruction extremely serious – At meeting later that day N dismissed applicant and told applicant to leave respondent’s premises immediately – Respondent claimed expected applicant to return to discuss matters – Respondent claimed tried to contact applicant – Respondent claimed applicant abandoned employment by failing to return – Authority found no more graphic example of summary dismissal – Found difficult to see why applicant would return given clear dismissal by N – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - $15,000 reimbursement of lost wages - $7,500 compensation appropriate – ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY – Applicant sought arrears of wages and holiday pay – Applicant claimed respondent failed to pay wages during notice period – Found applicant entitled to arrears of wages and holiday pay – Leave reserved for applicant to apply to Authority to determine quantum – Found applicant not entitled to wages during notice period – COUNTERCLAIM – BREACH OF CONTRACT – Respondent claimed applicant breached implied obligation of fidelity, failed to meet recruitment targets and applicant’s advertising incorrect – Respondent alleged applicant misrepresented had been acting college director – Applicant claimed had acted as college director when director away from office over three year period – Found recruitment targets seldom met, concerns not communicated to applicant and not part of applicant’s employment agreement – Found decision to use one advertising medium not made by applicant and any problem with campaign IT problem rather than marketing issue – Found prospectus checked by senior management and respondent did not take sensible step of checking some advertising – Found applicant’s claim to have been acting college director extraordinary claim to make if not true – No breach of contract – Sales and marketing manager |
| Result | Applications granted (unjustified dismissal)(arrears of wages and holiday pay); Reimbursement of lost wages ($15,000); Compensation for humiliation etc ($7,500); Arrears of wages and holiday pay (quantum to be determined); Application dismissed (counterclaim)(breach of contract); Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.56)(filing fee); No order for costs |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s136(2) |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_167.pdf [pdf 55 KB] |