| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 311 |
| Hearing date | 13 Mar 2014 |
| Determination date | 17 July 2014 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Location | Whakatane |
| Parties | Hughes v Wildland Consultants Ltd |
| Summary | ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant sought arrears of wages and holiday pay - Reduction in hours following applicant's return from parental leave - Whether applicant entitled to full time work - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Abandonment - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent refusing to provide applicant with work until applicant signed new employment agreement (EA") - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Whether applicant abandoned employment - Field supervisor" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY: Parties agreed to applicant working fewer hours on return from parental leave despite requirement in EA that variations be in writing. Applicant not entitled to wages for balance of full time hours. No arrears of wages and holiday pay.;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant not required to sign inferior EA. Applicant not prevented from working desired hours because another person appointed to applicant's role. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent not providing applicant with work unless applicant signed new EA. No investigation of abandonment matter and no advance indication of proposal to use abandonment provision in EA. Fair and reasonable employer could not invoke abandonment provision when knew where applicant was and how to contact applicant, that legal issues being pursued by applicant, that applicant had worked hours provided, and where ultimatum provided that applicant sign new EA or face prospect of not getting further work. Fair and reasonable employer could be expected to apply other options under EA before abandonment clause. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: Applicant failed to be responsive and communicative. 30 per cent contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $7,749 reimbursement of lost wages. $5,600 compensation appropriate. $619 compensation for loss of holiday pay benefit appropriate. |
| Result | Applications granted (unjustified disadvantage)(unjustified dismissal) ; Contributory conduct (30%) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($7,749) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,600) ; Compensation for loss of benefit ($619.92)(holiday pay) ; Application dismissed (arrears of wages and holiday pay) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s131 |
| Cases Cited | Howell v MSG Investments Ltd (formerly known as Zee Tags Ltd) [2014] NZEmpC 68 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_311.pdf [pdf 196 KB] |