Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2015] NZERA Auckland 115
Hearing date 16 Apr 2015
Determination date 21 April 2015
Member TG Tetitaha
Representation M Nutsford ; S Sharma
Location Auckland
Parties Kumar v NZ Mobiles Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Business Development Manager
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent accepted applicant unjustifiably dismissed under unenforceable 90 day trial period clause as no written trial period clause. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $6,666 reimbursement of lost wages. $1,000 compensation appropriate.
Result Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($6,666.66) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,000) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s67A;ERA s67(2);ERA s103A(2);ERA s103A(3);ERA s124;ERA s128
Cases Cited Allen v TransPacific Industries Group Ltd (t/a Media Smart Ltd) (2009) 6 NZELR 530;Argosy Imports Ltd v Lineham [1998] 3 ERNZ 976 (EmpC);Ballylaw Holdings Ltd v Henderson [2003] 1 ERNZ 313 (EmpC) ;;Carter Holt Harvey v Yukich [2005] ERNZ 300 (CA);Finau v Carter Holt Building Supplies [1993] 2 ERNZ 971 (EmpC);Goodfellow v Building Connexion Ltd t/a ITM Building Centre [2010] NZEmpC 82;Hall v Dionex Pty Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 29;Paykel Ltd v Ahlfeld [1993] 1 ERNZ 334 (EmpC);Sam’s Fukuyama Food Services Ltd v Zhang [2011] NZCA 608, [2011] ERNZ 482
Number of Pages 11
PDF File Link: 2015_NZERA_Auckland_115.pdf [pdf 237 KB]