| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Wellington 117 |
| Hearing date | 22 Oct 2014 |
| Determination date | 19 November 2014 |
| Member | T MacKinnon |
| Location | Whanganui |
| Parties | Lawton v Apex Electronic Service Centre Ltd (in liq) |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions – Whether applicant bullied and not provided with lunch hour – Whether unsafe working environment – Whether applicant not provided with yearly wage review – Wage subsidy – ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY – Applicant sought arrears of wages and holiday pay – Whether applicant worked two hours overtime per week over course of employment – RECOVERY OF MONIES – Applicant sought recovery of apprenticeship costs – Whether respondent attempted to impose bond on applicant’s apprenticeship costs – COSTS – Applicant sought $3,366 contribution towards costs – No appearance for respondent |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: No personal grievance raised at time of alleged shouting, unwarranted criticism of applicant’s work and nasty remarks. Certain meeting between parties expected to be robust and challenging given background correspondence between parties. Provision in employment agreement provided for annual review of wages but not for entitlement to increased wages. Applicant not paid less than minimum wage. No implied promise made to applicant of future ownership of business. No unjustified disadvantage.;ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY: Applicant placed great value on customer service and worked beyond normal finishing time on some jobs, but claim applicant worked additional two hours per week over duration of employment not sustained. Applicant recorded incorrectly as taking eleven days annual leave. Some days deducted against applicant’s sick leave and annual leave entitlements. Respondent to pay applicant arrears of holiday pay, quantum to be determined.;RECOVERY OF MONIES: Clause relied on by applicant in proposed employment agreement not in effect and would not have applied to external training costs funded by applicant. No recovery of monies.;COSTS: Less than one day investigation meeting. Appropriate to apply notional daily tariff adjusted to reflect applicant’s partial success. Respondent to pay applicant $1,000 contribution towards costs. |
| Result | Application granted (arrears of holiday pay) ; Arrears of holiday pay (quantum to be determined) ; Applications dismissed (unjustified disadvantage)(arrears of wages)(recovery of monies) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1,000) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s130;ERA Second Schedule cl12;Holidays Act 2003;Holidays Act 2003 s81 |
| Cases Cited | PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808;Varney v Tasman Regional Sports Trust unreported, Goddard CJ, 23 July 2004, CC15/04 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Wellington_117.pdf [pdf 173 KB] |