| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 119 |
| Hearing date | 14 Aug 2012 |
| Determination date | 01 October 2012 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | G Ogilvie ; V Livingstone (in person), L Carre |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Abdulina v Livingstone t/a Raumati Beauty Studio |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found not reasonable for respondent to infer applicant had resigned and fair and reasonable employer could be expected to seek proper clarification of applicant’s intentions – Found applicant dismissed – Found no investigation or reasons to justify dismissal – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Respondent to pay applicant $5,655 reimbursement of lost wages – $3,000 compensation appropriate – COSTS – Length of investigation meeting not specified – Applicant sought contribution towards costs – Respondent to pay applicant $3,000 contribution towards costs – Beauty therapist |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as beauty therapist. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent and sought contribution towards costs. Respondent handed applicant letter conveying respondent’s wish to condense applicant’s work hours. Applicant’s husband (“S”) arrived during meeting. Respondent claimed applicant and S planned S’s arrival deliberately to intimidate respondent. Applicant claimed had discovered pregnant that morning and S had arrived to take applicant to lunch. Respondent claimed applicant told by S to resign and then to get applicant’s possessions. Applicant collected belongings. Respondent denied applicant’s claim gave applicant afternoon off. Respondent claimed applicant resigned. Applicant returned to work next day to hand respondent letter declining offer to change work hours and indicating would be taking three weeks leave. Respondent denied applicant’s claim raised taking annual leave at meeting previous day. Five days later applicant wrote to respondent seeking response to applicant’s letter declining offer to change work hours. Applicant dismissed.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant and S had pre-arranged to go to lunch and no satisfactory reason why S would ambush parties’ meeting. Not reasonable for respondent to infer applicant had resigned and fair and reasonable employer could be expected to seek proper clarification of applicant’s intentions, especially as words of applicant’s letter asking for response from respondent implied continuing employment relationship. Applicant dismissed. No investigation or reasons to justify dismissal. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $5,655 reimbursement of lost wages. $3,000 compensation appropriate.;COSTS: Length of investigation meeting not specified. Respondent to pay applicant $3,000 contribution towards costs. |
| Result | Applications granted; Reimbursement of lost wages ($5,655); Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000); Costs in favour of applicant ($3,000); Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s124 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_119.pdf [pdf 155 KB] |