| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 127 |
| Hearing date | 21 Jun 2012 |
| Determination date | 27 June 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | P Tucker ; M Grocott (In person) |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Parratt v Mark Grocott t/a Fluffy's Roof Coatings |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Applicant sought arrears of wages and holiday pay – Authority found not event capable of justifying applicant’s dismissal – Found respondent did not raise concerns with applicant about applicant working for another employer - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES - No contributory conduct - Respondent to pay applicant $1,488 reimbursement of lost wages - $6,000 compensation appropriate - ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant sought arrears of wages and holiday pay - Respondent to pay applicant $22,921 arrears of wages and holiday pay - Interest payable – COSTS - Investigation meeting less than one day - Respondent to pay applicant $1,750 contribution towards costs |
| Abstract | Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant sought arrears of wages and holiday pay. Applicant claimed respondent should also have redirected $6,590 of applicant's wages to Court in accordance with unrelated attachment orders. Respondent denied dismissed applicant. Respondent denied were outstanding arrears of wages and holiday pay. Applicant claimed told by respondent director (“G”) might not be enough work one week and applicant should accept any offers of casual work. G claimed only suggested applicant find casual work during closedown period. Applicant told G unable to work for respondent next week as had casual position. Applicant went to G’s house to collect pay and claimed was told that employment terminated. Applicant did not return to work.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority denied applicant’s application for adjournment. Applicant dismissed. Based on G’s evidence, not event capable of justifying applicant’s dismissal. Respondent did not raise concerns with applicant about applicant working for another employer. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $1,488 reimbursement of lost wages. $6,000 compensation appropriate.;ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY: Credibility issues with G’s evidence as to why no wage records for applicant. Applicant’s evidence worked 40 hour weeks unsustainable. Respondent should have forward to Court remaining $2,925 in accordance with attachment orders from applicant’s wages. Respondent to pay applicant $22,921 arrears of wages and holiday pay. Interest payable.;COSTS: Investigation meeting less than one day. Respondent to pay applicant $1,750 contribution towards costs. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($1,488) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Arrears of wages and holiday pay ($22,921.16) ; Interest payable (5%) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1,750) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3)(b);ERA s103A(3)(c);ERA s103A(3)(d);ERA s124;ERA s128(2);ERA s132;ERA Second Schedule cl11;Interpretation Act 1999 s4;Interpretation Act 1999 s7;Judicature Act 1908;Summary Proceedings Act 1957 s87(1)(b);Summary Proceedings Act 1957 s88(3)(a);Summary Proceedings Act 1957 s103 |
| Cases Cited | PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_127.pdf [pdf 243 KB] |