| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 178 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jun 2011 |
| Determination date | 22 August 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | V Gillan ; J Brenssell |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Taylor v Clear Investments Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Authority found applicant’s lack of set hours, irregularity of hours worked, content of employment agreement and flexibility respondent offered applicant showed casual working relationship between parties – Found applicant’s employment ended during engagement and agreed period of engagement could not be completed – Found applicant dismissed - Found no evidence respondent raised concerns with applicant would have to employ other staff to do applicant’s work, applicant undermined senior staff member’s ability to give instructions, could not trust applicant, and had viewed applicant’s lack of activity on video footage - Dismissal unjustified - Authority noted applicant did not seek compensation and as unfair for applicant to receive no remedies Authority found applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged when respondent dismissed applicant without raising all concerns with applicant - REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - $2,000 compensation appropriate |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant’s employment agreement (“EA”) stated applicant employed as and when required with periods of continued work not changing casual nature of employment. Applicant claimed worked regular rostered shifts and status changed from casual to part time employee. Applicant admitted unaware of any worker being told by respondent could not be absent when indicated non-availability on basic leave form. Applicant informed respondent not available for work over two upcoming months. Respondent received complaint from co-worker applicant said would boycott cleaning. In meeting with respondent applicant denied complaint initially then confirmed complaint correct after respondent checked complaint with co-worker. Applicant dismissed. Respondent claimed concerned would have to employ other staff to do applicant’s work, applicant undermined senior staff member’s ability to give instructions, could not trust applicant, and had viewed applicant’s lack of activity on video footage. Respondent claimed applicant dishonest when denied complaint.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISDVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Lack of set hours, irregularity of hours worked, content of EA and flexibility respondent offered applicant showed casual working relationship between parties. Applicant’s timesheets showed applicant did not work as regularly as applicant claimed. While applicant casual employee, applicant’s employment terminated during engagement and agreed period of engagement could not be completed. Applicant dismissed. No evidence respondent raised concerns with applicant would have to employ other staff to do applicant’s work, applicant undermined senior staff member’s ability to give instructions, could not trust applicant, and had viewed applicant’s lack of activity on video footage. Dismissal unjustified. Authority noted applicant did not seek compensation and as unfair for applicant to receive no remedies Authority found applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged when respondent dismissed applicant without raising all concerns with applicant. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $2,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3)(b);ERA s103A(3)(c);ERA s103A(3)(d);ERA s122;ERA s124;Interpretation Act 1999;Interpretation Act 1999 s4;Interpretation Act 1999 s7 |
| Cases Cited | Barnes (formerly Kissell) v Whangarei Returned Services Assoc (Inc) [1997] ERNZ 626;Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd [2009] ERNZ 225 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_178.pdf [pdf 166 KB] |