Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2014] NZERA Auckland 476
Hearing date 17 Nov 2014
Determination date 20 November 2014
Member TG Tetitaha
Representation A Swan ; D Vaoga
Location Auckland
Parties Dasari v Whanau Tahi Ltd
Summary JURISDICTION - Whether applicant in employment relationship with respondent - Whether applicant person intending to work - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Applicant unable to obtain variation to employer-specific work visa when respondent refused to sign employment agreement
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND -;JURISDICTION: Applicant offered and accepted employment. Applicant worked for respondent and both parties expected applicant to be remunerated for work undertaken. Applicant employed by respondent.;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent may not have been aware of applicant's work visa status initially but well aware applicant had work visa issues when offer of employment made. No evidence of deceptive behaviour by applicant. Applicant's employment terminated unilaterally when respondent refused to sign employment agreement. Applicant dismissed. No evidence of compliance with any matters set out in s 103A Employment Relations Act 2000. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant reimbursement of lost wages, quantum to be determined. $5,000 compensation appropriate.
Result Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (quantum to be determined) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s6(1)(a);ERA s6(1)(b);ERA s103A;ERA s103A(2);ERA s124;ERA s128;ERA s128(2);ERA s128(3);ERA s131
Cases Cited Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Yukich [2005] ERNZ 300;Finau v Carter Holt Building Supplies [1993] 2 ERNZ 971;Goodfellow v Building Connexion Ltd trading as ITM Building Centre [2010] NZEmpC 82
Number of Pages 10
PDF File Link: 2014_NZERA_Auckland_476.pdf [pdf 166 KB]