| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 63 |
| Hearing date | 29 Mar 2012 |
| Determination date | 05 June 2012 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | L Hansen ; B Henderson |
| Location | New Plymouth |
| Parties | Kemp v Hawera Cinema 2 Trust Inc t/a Hawera Cinemas |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decisions to suspend applicant and warn applicant – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found applicant given no input into respondent’s decisions to suspend applicant and warn applicant – Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decisions to suspend applicant and to warn applicant – Found applicant did not refuse to meet manager or attend workshop - Found applicant not given opportunity to comment on allegation applicant’s conduct at mediation meeting destructive and negative – Found applicant not told dismissal possible or given opportunity to have input on penalty – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Respondent to pay applicant $6,572 gross lost wages, less a separate sum of $2,071 net in earnings reimbursement of lost wages - $4,000 compensation appropriate – Supervisor |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as supervisor. Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decisions to suspend applicant and warn applicant. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Respondent claimed applicant’s behaviour inappropriate. Applicant suspended. Parties attended meeting to discuss respondent’s allegations. Respondent appointed mediator who was acquaintance of applicant’s manager (“B”) and friend of applicant’s colleague responsible for one of the allegations. At mediation meeting mediator gave applicant three oral warnings and written warning. Respondent claimed applicant refused to attend workshop or meet with B and applicant’s attitude at mediation meeting destructive and negative. Applicant dismissed.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority ordered non-publication of respondent’s financial information. Applicant given no input into respondent’s decisions to suspend applicant and warn applicant. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decisions to suspend applicant and warn applicant. Mediator not impartial. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decisions to suspend applicant and warn applicant. Applicant did not refuse to meet B or attend workshop. Applicant not given opportunity to comment on allegation applicant’s attitude at mediation meeting destructive and negative. Applicant not told dismissal possible or given opportunity to have input on penalty. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: Respondent to pay applicant $6,572 gross lost wages, less a separate sum of $2,071 net in earnings reimbursement of lost wages. $4,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Applications granted; Reimbursement of lost wages ($6,572.28 gross lost wages, less a separate sum of $2,071.33 net in earnings); Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000); Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.56)(filing fee); No order for costs |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s124 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_63.pdf [pdf 132 KB] |