| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 255 |
| Hearing date | 17 Jul 2012 |
| Determination date | 26 July 2012 |
| Member | A Fitzgibbon |
| Representation | D Prisk : No appearance |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Sinton v Burns & Ferrall Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions – Authority found applicant unaware could be dismissed and not given information relevant to proposed dismissal or opportunity to comment on information – Found respondent breached good faith obligations towards applicant – Found no evidence genuine redundancy – Found applicant’s dismissal procedurally unfair and respondent carried out dismissal in humiliation manner - Dismissal unjustified - REMEDIES - No contributory conduct - $15,530 reimbursement of lost wages - $10,000 compensation appropriate - ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicant sought arrears of wages - Respondent to pay applicant $5,000 arrears of wages – GOOD FAITH - Respondent breached good faith obligations towards applicant - COSTS - Half day investigation meeting - Respondent to pay applicant $1,750 contribution towards costs - Team Leader |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as national service delivery team leader. Applicant sought arrears of wages, claimed unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions and respondent breached good faith obligations. No appearance for respondent. When interviewed for position applicant told would be paid $5,000 annually if met agreed targets. Evidence of applicant achieving targets provided by new system respondent told applicant would be installed shortly. New system not installed after applicant had been employed for three months and applicant raised matter with respondent general manager (“N”). Applicant manually recording achievement of targets and N confirmed applicant would be paid bonus. New system never installed and applicant not paid bonus. N left respondent and not replaced. Applicant later made redundant. Applicant later advised would not receive bonus as applicant had not met targets. Applicant had difficult relationship with respondent manager (“M”). Applicant requested meeting to discuss M’s behaviour with respondent chief executive officer (“G”). G failed to respond to request. G misrepresented restructure consultant (“K”) as student writing thesis on service departments. G requested that applicant answer all K’s questions truthfully and honestly. Applicant later made redundant and told K consultant, not student. Applicant required to leave workplace immediately.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Respondent served with statement of problem and appropriate to proceed with investigation. Applicant only made one request for meeting with G. Applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by G’s failure to respond to meeting request. G’s misrepresentation of K misleading and deceptive. Applicant unaware could be dismissed and not given information relevant to proposed dismissal or opportunity to comment on information. Respondent breached good faith obligations towards applicant. No evidence genuine redundancy. Applicant’s dismissal procedurally unfair and respondent carried out dismissal in humiliation manner. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $15,530 reimbursement of lost wages. $10,000 compensation appropriate.;GOOD FAITH: Respondent breached good faith obligations towards applicant.;ARREARS OF WAGES: Applicant achieved targets but could not provide report as new system never installed. Respondent to pay applicant $5,000 arrears of wages.;COSTS: Half day investigation meeting. Respondent to pay applicant $1,750 contribution towards costs. |
| Result | Applications granted (unjustified dismissal, arrears of wages and costs) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($15,530) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000) ; Arrears of wages ($5,000) ; Application dismissed (unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1,750) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s103 |
| Cases Cited | Coutts Cars Ltd v Baguley [2001] ERNZ 660 ; [2001] 2 NZLR 533;GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington Caretakers IUOW (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843 ; [1991] 1 NZLR 151 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_255.pdf [pdf 250 KB] |