Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No [2014] NZERA Christchurch 28
Hearing date 28 Jan 2014
Determination date 19 February 2014
Member H Doyle
Representation P de Wattignar ; C McKay
Location Dunedin
Parties Hogeboom v Quality Firewood Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - 90 day trial period - Whether applicant commenced work before entering written employment agreement (EA") with respondent - Whether one day work trial amounted to employment - Whether WINZ subsidy for employment suggested employment started at later date - Applicant called in sick to work - Heated exchange between applicant and respondent - Applicant dismissed following suspected drug use - Chainsaw operator and labourer"
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: One day trial amounted to employment. Likely applicant worked multiple days before entering EA. Employment relationship commenced before subsidy claimed from WINZ. Applicant employee at time EA entered. 90 day trial period clause not valid. Respondent's conclusion on drug use should have been talked through with applicant. Procedural requirements not satisfied and defects not minor. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Reimbursement of lost wages, quantum to be determined. 4,500 compensation appropriate.
Result Application granted; Reimbursement of lost wages (quantum to be determined); Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,500); Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s6(1)(a) - ERA s67A - ERA s67A(3) - ERA s103A - ERA s103A(3)(a) - ERA s103A(3)(b) - ERA s103A(3)(c) - ERA s103A(3)(d)
Cases Cited Blackmore v Honick Properties Ltd [2011] ERNZ 445;Hogeboom v Quality Firewood Ltd [2013] NZERA Christchurch 13;Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy (2009) Ltd [2010] ERNZ 253;The Salad Bowl Ltd v Howe-Thornley [2013] NZEmpC 152
Number of Pages 14
PDF File Link: 2014_NZERA_Christchurch_28.pdf [pdf 367 KB]