| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 224 |
| Hearing date | 14 Sep 2012 |
| Determination date | 16 October 2012 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | R Donnelly ; S Bradshaw |
| Parties | Cleaver v Hall |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found applicant dismissed after applicant swore and shouted at respondent when respondent refused applicant’s request for wage increase – Found on balance respondent deliberately struck applicant three times when applicant told respondent would see respondent “in Court” - Found respondent’s actions not those of fair and reasonable employer in circumstances after disagreement about applicant’s terms of employment – Found applicant’s request for wage increase not provocation justifying respondent’s actions - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES - No contributory conduct - Respondent to pay applicant reimbursement of lost wages, parties to determine quantum - $4,500 compensation appropriate – Farm Worker |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as farm worker by respondent. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant claimed assaulted by respondent and called Police (“incident”). Respondent denied touched applicant and claimed parties had verbal altercation after applicant requested wage increase. Applicant claimed shouted and swore after respondent refused wage increase and respondent told applicant was “fired.” Applicant claimed when told respondent would see respondent “in Court” respondent told applicant would make it “worth it” before striking applicant on head and body three times. Respondent denied applicant dismissed and claimed applicant resigned suddenly after incident. Applicant claimed told by respondent to leave accommodation, provided as part of employment, by end of day. Parties agreed applicant’s employment terminated after incident. Respondent convicted of assault and appeal unsuccessful. Respondent claimed observed applicant hitting animal and would have dismissed applicant for mistreatment of animal or causing loss of respondent’s product.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority noted photographs taken by applicant’s mother shortly after incident showed contusion to applicant’s eye. On balance, Authority satisfied respondent deliberately struck applicant three times. More likely applicant said would see respondent “in Court” in response to dismissal, not in response to respondent’s refusal to increase applicant’s wages. Not likely applicant would resign after told would not be getting wage increase. Applicant dismissed. Respondent’s actions not those of fair and reasonable employer in circumstances after disagreement about applicant’s terms of employment. Applicant’s request for wage increase not provocation justifying respondent’s actions. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No link between respondent’s mistreatment and loss of product allegations and dismissal. No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant reimbursement of lost wages, parties to determine quantum. $4,500 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (parties to determine quantum) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,500) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_224.pdf [pdf 108 KB] |