Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2014] NZERA Auckland 23
Hearing date 9-10 Sep 2013;29 Oct 2013
Determination date 23 January 2014
Member R A Monaghan
Representation J Goodall ; M Robson
Parties Patel v Adamar Holdings Ltd and Anor
Other Parties Adamar No 1 Ltd
Summary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Whether applicant employed by first or second respondent - ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant sought arrears of wages and arrears of holiday pay - Applicant claimed employed as manager but respondent claimed applicant crew member - Two employment agreements - Respondent claimed agreement relied on by applicant falsified - Respondent claimed applicant fraudulent in visa application - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Respondent noticed applicant's visa stated applicant employed as manager - Applicant suspended due to 'inconsistencies surrounding employment agreement' and due to 'hostile comments' - Respondent sought original copy of employment agreement from Immigration New Zealand - Continuing disputes between parties and allegations of misconduct - Respondent claimed applicant attempted to extort money from respondent - Applicant dismissed - Crew member
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND -;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Applicant employed by second respondent.;ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY: No reasonable grounds for respondent's insistence on fraud by applicant. Applicant employed as manager but commencement of role forced applicant to change employment to crew member. Consent implied after three months working as crew member. Applicant entitled to three months wages and holiday at pay based on manager rate. Respondent to pay applicant arrears of wages and arrears of holiday pay, quantum to be determined. Interest payable.;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension. No reason for respondent to believe applicant falsified employment agreement. Whether dismissal due to alleged misconduct or difficulties over employment agreement dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant reimbursement of lost wages, quantum to be determined. $500 compensation appropriate for unjustified disadvantage and $10,000 compensation appropriate for unjustified dismissal.
Result Applications granted; Reimbursement of lost wages (quantum to be determined); Compensation for humiliation etc ($500)(unjustified disadvantage) ($10,000)(unjustified dismissal); Arrears of wages and holiday pay (quantum to be determined); Interest (5%) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Arrears
Statutes ERA s103A(3) - Holidays Act 2003
Cases Cited Cashmere Capital Ltd v Carroll [2010] 1 NZLR 577;NZ Fisheries Ltd v Napier City Council (1990) 1 NZ ConvC 190,342
Number of Pages 16
PDF File Link: 2014_NZERA_Auckland_23.pdf [pdf 276 KB]