| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 83 |
| Hearing date | 22 May 2012 |
| Determination date | 24 July 2012 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | G Ogilvie ; M Williamson |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Owen v Eyeline Optical Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Authority found applicant dismissed by respondent without investigation into applicant's lateness and absences - Applicant given no opportunity to respond to concerns as issues not raised prior to dismissal - Dismissal unjustified - REMEDIES - One third contributory conduct - Respondent to pay applicant $2,136 reimbursement of lost wages - $2,000 compensation appropriate - ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant sought arrears of wages and holiday pay - Respondent to pay applicant $2,969 arrears of wages and holiday pay - COSTS - Less than one day investigation meeting - Applicant sought $3,000 contribution towards costs - Respondent to pay applicant $2,000 contribution towards costs |
| Abstract | Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent and sought arrears of wages and holiday pay. Respondent dismissed applicant after applicant failed to attend work two weeks after receiving final warning from respondent regarding amount of absences from work and lateness arriving to work. Applicant claimed was dismissed after car broke down while on way to work. Applicant notified respondent would not be at work due to car breakdown and nor the next day due to interview. Respondent out of frustration immediately terminated applicant's employment. Respondent did not pay applicant for last week of work. Applicant sought $3,000 contribution towards costs. Less than one day investigation meeting.;AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent had dismissed applicant without any semblance of fair procedure. No investigation into issues of applicant's lateness and absences. Respondent had not raised specific concerns with applicant prior to dismissal. No opportunity for applicant to respond. Not entirely clear why applicant had been dismissed therefore follows applicant unjustifiably dismissed. Respondent failed to pay applicant's last week's pay, notice or holiday pay. REMEDIES: One third contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $2,136 reimbursement of lost wages. $2,000 compensation appropriate.;ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY: Respondent failed to pay applicant last week's pay, two weeks' notice and holiday pay. Respondent to pay applicant $2,969 arrears of wages and holiday pay.;COSTS - Matter was standard case and in circumstances $2,000 contribution towards costs appropriate. Respondent to pay applicant $2,000 contribution towards costs. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Contributory conduct (one third); Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,136); Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) ; Arrears of wages and holiday pay ($2,969.44) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($2,000) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(4);ERA s103A(5) |
| Cases Cited | Angus & Anor v Ports of Auckland Ltd (2011) 9 NZELC 94,015;Coca-Cola Amatil (NZ) Ltd v Kaczorowski [1998] 1 ERNZ 264;Inspector of Awards & Agreements v Eliasen (t/a Mt Erin Chrysanthemums) [1987] NZILR 126 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_83.pdf [pdf 189 KB] |