| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Wellington 73 |
| Hearing date | 7 mar 2013 |
| Determination date | 27 June 2013 |
| Member | T MacKinnon |
| Representation | T von Dadelszen ; G Muir |
| Parties | Williams v Big Image Print 2009 Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension and written warnings and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant accused of excessive personal internet use, undercharging and undertaking design work for personal gain - Applicant suspended for two days – Applicant claimed respondent accepted explanations and agreed to “move on” - Applicant presented with written warnings – Warnings contained issues not addressed at meeting – Respondent raised concerns regarding applicant’s work – Whether applicant aggressive and abusive - Applicant suffered acute stress reaction post-dismissal - ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY – Applicant sought arrears of holiday pay – Leave records kept in diary – Applicant changed from part-time to full-time |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent provided insufficient detail of applicant’s alleged conduct. No contractual sanction for suspension. No compelling reason for suspension put forward. Suspension pre-determined. Warnings not issued following full and fair investigation. Several issues not raised prior to warnings. Respondent indicated happy to “move on”. Respondent did not indicate further issues or possibility of disciplinary action. No opportunity to bring support person. Applicant’s explanations not properly considered. Inadequate information provided in advance of meeting. Applicant left to guess work respondent querying. Applicant’s aggressive behaviour exaggerated. Respondent’s inexperience as employer not excuse for failings. Stress caused by dismissal. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension and written warnings. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $10,518 reimbursement of lost wages. $10,000 compensation appropriate.;ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY: Veracity of diary evidence doubtful. Respondent’s failure to maintain holiday and leave records prevented applicant bringing accurate claim. Respondent to pay applicant $658 arrears of holiday pay. Interest payable. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($10,518.75) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($658.35) ; Interest (5%) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A – ERA s103A(a) – ERA s103A(b) – ERA s103A(c) – ERA s103A(d) – ERA s103A(5) – ERA s124 – ERA s124(2) – ERA s129(3) - Holidays Act 2003 - Holidays Act 2003 s24 - Holidays Act 2003 s25 - Holidays Act 2003 s81 - Holidays Act 2003 s83(4)(b) |
| Cases Cited | Graham v Airways Corporation of New Zealand [2005] ERNZ 587;Sefo v Sealord Shellfish Ltd [2008] ERNZ 178 |
| Number of Pages | 18 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Wellington_73.pdf [pdf 332 KB] |