Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2014] NZERA Auckland 36
Hearing date 5 Nov 2013
Determination date 03 February 2014
Member K J Anderson
Representation D Vinnicombe ; S Pope
Location Hamilton
Parties Thomas v Tic-Tac-Toe Educare Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Whether valid 90 day trial period – Whether valid fixed term agreement – Applicant employed on casual basis originally – Request for employment agreement (“EA”) to allow applicant to undertake course of study – Childcare facility
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Trial period provision in EA did not go anywhere near meeting requirements of Employment Relations Act 2000. EA not signed prior to applicant commencing employment. No valid trial period provision. Fixed term provision did not comply with essential requirements of Employment Relations Act 2000. Unclear whether applicant elected to treat fixed term provision as ineffective but applicant had no expectation of work beyond end of fixed term period. No tangible evidence applicant dismissed because of comments made on survey form and applicant probably dismissed because staff to children ratio unbalanced. Inconclusive whether applicant genuinely surplus to respondent’s requirements. Respondent failed to consult with applicant. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $2,784 reimbursement of lost wages. $1,000 compensation appropriate.
Result Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,784) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,000) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA;ERA s66;ERA s66(1);ERA s66(4);ERA s66(6);ERA s67A;ERA s67B;ERA s103A(2);ERA s103A(3);ERA s128
Cases Cited Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy (2009) Ltd [2010] ERNZ 253
Number of Pages 9
PDF File Link: 2014_NZERA_Auckland_36.pdf [pdf 169 KB]