Restrictions Includes non-publication order
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No [2015] NZERA Christchurch 126
Hearing date 13-Aug-15
Determination date 08 September 2015
Member David Appleton
Representation R Thompson, M McDonald ; G Houston (in person)
Location Ashburton
Parties Bower v Houston
Summary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer – Whether applicant employed by respondent’s company – Respondent’s company struck off - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension without pay and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Assault - Chef
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Order for non-publication of identifying information of respondent’s employees alleged to have been assaulted. No written employment agreement as respondent did not know what to put for applicant’s position. All other staff employees of respondent’s company. Applicant paid by respondent’s company. Reasonable person would consider applicant to be employed by respondent’s company in all circumstances. Applicant employed by respondent’s company. Respondents struck out as party and replaced by respondent’s company.;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: No evidence that respondent’s company struck off to frustrate applicant’s claim. No further proceedings may continue against respondent’s company. Application dismissed.
Result Application granted (practice and procedure) ; Orders made ; Application dismissed (unjustified disadvantage – unjustified dismissal) ; No order for costs
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s6;ERA s6(2);ERA s6(3)
Cases Cited Vince Roberts Electrical v Carroll [2015] NZEmpC 112
Number of Pages 12
PDF File Link: 2015_NZERA_Christchurch_126.pdf [pdf 253 KB]