Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2014] NZERA Auckland 138
Hearing date 15 jan 2014
Determination date 10 April 2014
Member K J Anderson
Representation S Austin v S Te Amo
Location Whakatane
Parties Te Ariki v Omaet Investments Ltd t/a The Commercial Hotel
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Performance concerns - Alleged unauthorised absence - Warning letters - Whether applicant told respondent's owner (T") that T deserved to be assaulted - Whether applicant said assault of T "karma" - Whether applicant told T "everyone hates you" at staff meeting - Duty bar manager"
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: No indication in applicant's evidence that applicant suspended. No suspension. Respondent failed to inform applicant employment in jeopardy. No reliance to be placed on first written warning letter as no discussion with applicant about alleged unauthorised absence and applicant did not see letter prior to date of dismissal. Applicant never uplifted previous letters left for applicant and would have been prudent for respondent to have delivered letters to applicant personally and ensured letters read and understood. No opportunity for applicant to explain views expressed to T at staff meeting. Dismissal predetermined. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: 70 per cent contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $2,646 reimbursement of lost wages. $2,100 compensation appropriate.
Result Application granted (unjustified dismissal) ; Contributory conduct (70%) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,646.65) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,100) ; Application dismissed (unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A(2);ERA s103A(3);ERA s124;ERA s128;ERA s128(2)
Number of Pages 14
PDF File Link: 2014_NZERA_Auckland_138.pdf [pdf 180 KB]