| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 300 |
| Hearing date | 16 Jul 2012 - 17 Jul 2012 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 31 August 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | W Reid, R Rolston ; P Jennings, R Langton |
| Location | Tauranga |
| Parties | Taki & Anor v Spotless Facility Services (NZ) Ltd |
| Other Parties | Taki |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – Applicants claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension – Second applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to communicate with second applicant directly – Applicants claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Claimed not assured of continued payment during suspension and investigation into alleged theft of money from respondent’s client – Suspension during investigation – Triangular employment relationship – Video footage – Cleaners |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent had contractual obligation to client to remove applicants from client’s worksite pending investigation but could not deprive applicants of right to work for other clients without evidence of dishonest behaviour. Respondent sought first applicant’s comments on proposal to suspend but should have encouraged applicants to seek legal advice. Applicants unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension. Second applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to communicate with second applicant directly. Applicants’ belief would not be paid fully during investigation mistaken and unreasonable. No constructive dismissal. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $5,000 compensation appropriate (first applicant) and $7,000 compensation appropriate (second applicant). |
| Result | Applications granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000 – first applicant)($7,000 – second applicant) ; Applications dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Disbursements in favour of first applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) ; Disbursements in favour of second applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(5) |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (No 2) (2011) 9 NZELR 40 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_300.pdf [pdf 542 KB] |