Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No [2014] NZERA Christchurch 30
Hearing date 13 Feb 2014
Determination date 20 February 2014
Member M B Loftus
Representation S McKenzie ; R Webster
Location Invercargill
Parties Elfeil v South Pacific Meats Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions – Whether applicant appointed to specific position of halal slaughterman or appointed to department and able to be deployed as needs dictated – Applicant moved from nightshift to dayshift – Employee replaced by applicant on dayshift successful in challenging respondent’s actions in Employment Court (“EC”) – Respondent believed EC judgment meant other employee had to be reinstated to dayshift – Applicant not offered position as dayshift halal slaughterman and offered choice of doing other tasks or waiting for halal work to become available on nightshift
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Matter decided already by EC judgment. Applicant employed as halal slaughterman. Applicant disadvantaged by significant reduction in earning capacity as result of applicant’s replacement by other employee. Applicant did not abandon employment. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $9,395 reimbursement of lost wages. $4,000 compensation appropriate.
Result Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($9,395.21) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s124;ERA s137
Cases Cited Allen v Transpacific Group Ltd (t/as Medismart Ltd) (2009) 6 NZELR 530;Mohammed v South Pacific Meats Ltd [2011] NZERA Christchurch 164;South Pacific Meats Ltd v Mohammed (2012) 10 NZELR 52
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: 2014_NZERA_Christchurch_30.pdf [pdf 165 KB]