| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Christchurch 94 |
| Hearing date | 18 May 2015 |
| Determination date | 09 July 2015 |
| Member | Christine Hickey |
| Representation | V Carmine ; S Doolan |
| Location | Blenheim |
| Parties | Oberdries v CB Norwood Distributors Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether applicant dismissed while on valid 90 day trial period – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s lack of co-operation with applicant’s ACC manager and failure to discuss poor performance with applicant before dismissal - BREACH OF CONTRACT - Applicant claimed respondent breached employment agreement (“EA”) by not applying clause in EA regarding dismissal for long-term medical incapacity – ESTOPPEL – Applicant claimed respondent estopped from dismissal - Sales representative |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –JURISDICTION: Dismissal carried out in accordance with trial period. Applicant unable to bring any claims relating to dismissal. No jurisdiction.UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: If wrong about jurisdiction, respondent not evasive when dealing with ACC manager. Applicant cannot have been disadvantaged even if respondent evasive and uncooperative because applicant not ready to return to work on reduced tasks. Respondent could have been clearer about performance concerns but trial period meant that respondent did not have to conform to usual procedural fairness requirements. Respondent may have breached good faith by not being clearer, but claim intrinsically linked to dismissal so applicant unable to bring claim. No unjustified disadvantage.BREACH OF CONTRACT: Applicant did not put forward any claims unrelated to dismissal. All claims related to dismissal unable to be brought. No breach of contract.ESTOPPEL: Estoppel claim related to dismissal so applicant unable to bring claim. Application dismissed. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s67A;ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s125;ERA s128 |
| Cases Cited | Castle v Luxottica Retail NZ Ltd [2014] NZERA Auckland;Martin v Healthy Living Trading Company Ltd [2014] NZERA Auckland 440;Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy [2010] NZEmpC 111, [2010] ERNZ 253 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Christchurch_94.pdf [pdf 259 KB] |