| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Auckland 68 |
| Hearing date | 9 Mar 2015 |
| Determination date | 10 March 2015 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | D Prisk ; J Schlooz |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Mendez v retro Espresso Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Whether valid 90 day trial period provision - Dismissal over telephone - PENALTY - Applicant sought penalty for respondent's breach of good faith and failure to provide wage and time records - Barista |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant already employee when employment agreement signed. No valid trial period provision. Applicant not advised that poor timekeeping and unreliability might result in termination of employment. No formal meeting held to discuss issues where applicant advised of right to have support person present. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $8,840 reimbursement of lost wages. $1,500 compensation appropriate.;PENALTY: Respondent's breach of good faith considered as part of finding applicant unjustifiably dismissed. No penalty for breach of good faith. Records requested not provided in required format. Failure to provide payroll records in required form disadvantaged applicant. $500 penalty appropriate. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($8,840) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,500) ; Penalty ($500)(payable to applicant) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s4;ERA s67A;ERA s67B;ERA s103A;ERA s128(2);Holidays Act 2003 |
| Cases Cited | Blackmore v Honick Properties Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 152, [2011] ERNZ 445 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Auckland_68.pdf [pdf 176 KB] |