| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 418 |
| Hearing date | 10 Sep 2013 |
| Determination date | 16 September 2013 |
| Member | A Fitzgibbon |
| Representation | Y Kagadiy ; I Dugan |
| Parties | Kagadiy v Prestige Pacific (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor Performance – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Whether valid 90 day trial period – Whether applicant told at interviews would be employed pursuant to trial period – Whether applicant did not perform in role or have skills for role – Refusal to pay applicant notice – Recent immigrant – Office administrator |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant not presented with written employment agreement containing trial period provision until date of dismissal. Trial period provision did not refer to period of 90 days or state applicant could not bring personal grievance if dismissed during that time. No valid trial period. Previous meeting between parties general catch up and no warning applicant’s employment in jeopardy. No investigation into respondent’s concerns about applicant’s performance. No opportunity for applicant to respond. Applicant not told purpose of final meeting or offered opportunity of bringing support person. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $640 reimbursement of lost wages. $3,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($640) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s67A;ERA s67B;ERA s103A;ERA s103A(2);ERA s103A(3);ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (No 2) [2011] ERNZ 466;Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy (2009) Ltd [2010] ERNZ 253 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_418.pdf [pdf 257 KB] |