| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Christchurch 55 |
| Hearing date | 11 Dec 2014 |
| Determination date | 30 April 2015 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | G Bennett ; R Upton |
| Location | Queenstown |
| Parties | Lata v Oceania Care Co Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by disciplinary investigation and suspension and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – COUNTERCLAIM – BREACH OF CONTRACT – Respondent sought special damages for applicant’s breach of employment agreement and associated costs of forensic report - COUNTERCLAIM – PENALTY – Respondent sought penalty for applicant’s breach of employment agreement (“EA”) –COUNTERCLAIM – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Respondent sought order for non-publication of identity - Healthcare assistant |
| Abstract | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Non publication of resident’s identity. Respondent conducted investigation fairly. Applicant given opportunity to comment. Fair and reasonable for respondent to conduct suspension conversation by phone given distance applicant lived from work. No unjustified disadvantage. Fair and reasonable employer could have concluded applicant was in disputed photo showing serious misconduct and committed serious misconduct. Respondent put concerns to applicant, allowed applicant to comment and considered the response with open mind. Dismissal justified.COUNTERCLAIM – BREACH OF CONTRACT: Cost of forensic report normal cost of doing business and properly complying with procedural requirements. No damages.COUNTERCLAIM – PENALTY: Authority not required to decide whether applicant committed serious misconduct. Applicant already suffered severe consequences and respondent’s claim seemed ancillary. No penalty.COUNTERCLAIM – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE : Application commercially driven, respondent easily identified if applicant’s name disclosed and proceedings would not reflect badly on respondent. Application for non-publication order dismissed. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | H v A Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 92, [2014] ERNZ 38 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Christchurch_55.pdf [pdf 112 KB] |