| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 133 |
| Hearing date | 8 Aug 2012 |
| Determination date | 31 October 2012 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | W Heath (in person) ; C Heaton |
| Location | Masterton |
| Parties | Heath v The Wairarapa Services and Citizens Club Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found applicant’s claims harassed and bullied by respondent needed to be investigated by respondent – Found applicant’s relationship with colleague became dysfunctional - Found applicant returning keys, not returning to work and respondent director (“G”) not following up on matter indicated G dispensed with applicant’s employment – Found applicant’s employment ended unjustifiably at respondent’s initiative - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES - 15 per cent contributory conduct - $3,400 compensation appropriate - Respondent to pay applicant $5,073 reimbursement of lost wages - Acting Manager |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as acting manager. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant claimed harassed and bullied by respondent employees including respondent secretary (D"). Respondent denied applicant had been dismissed. Respondent accepted applicant’s fixed term employment agreement (“EA”) did not meet legislative fixed term requirements. Parties did not have written EA. Parties disputed whether respondent agreed to reimburse applicant for expenses related to applicant attending conference. Applicant claimed told by manager to take day off but was not paid for day. Applicant claimed became concerned about role, training and respondent president (“G”) taking on applicant’s duties. Applicant requested meeting to discuss issues but meeting adjourned after applicant made allegations about discrepancies in respondent’s records. Respondent organised further meeting where applicant formally notified respondent felt harassed and bullied but no progress made and respondent did not arrange further meeting. Applicant claimed after D questioned applicant’s experience applicant cleared desk and contacted lawyer. Applicant later claimed D told applicant to leave. Applicant claimed repeatedly asked G if respondent wanted applicant to leave employment. G denied told applicant would be best if applicant left. Applicant’s claimed G’s comment amounted to dismissal. Applicant returned respondent’s keys and filled out timesheet.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent accepted end of employment without following up with applicant. Applicant’s claims harassed and bullied by respondent needed to be investigated by respondent. Applicant’s relationship with D became dysfunctional. Applicant could have been more communicative about whether G wanted applicant to end employment. G and D’s personal relationship allowed D to influence G’s perception of events. More likely than not applicant told to leave. Applicant returning keys, not returning to work and G not following up on matter indicated G dispensed with applicant’s employment. Respondent did not investigate matter, raise matter formally with applicant or give applicant opportunity to respond. Applicant’s employment ended unjustifiably at respondent’s initiative. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: 15 per cent contributory conduct. $3,400 compensation appropriate. Respondent to pay applicant $5,073 reimbursement of lost wages." |
| Result | Application granted ; Contributory conduct (15%) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,400) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($5,073.75) ; No order for costs ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s66 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_133.pdf [pdf 241 KB] |