| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Auckland 311 |
| Hearing date | 1-Oct-2015 - 2-Oct-2015 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 05 October 2015 |
| Member | Eleanor Robinson |
| Representation | M Birch ; C Eggleston |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hansen v Shooting Star Enterprises Ltd t/a Fusion Salon |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by lack of training and stress caused by respondent’s director – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – 90 day trial – ARREARS OF WAGES – Applicant sought arrears of wages – GOOD FAITH – Applicant claimed respondent breached good faith |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent provided adequate training to applicant. Reasonable for respondent to request applicant performance extra tasks. Respondent unaware of applicant’s stress. No unjustified disadvantage. Work performed by applicant before signing employment agreement pre-employment test only. Applicant not existing employee at time of signing. Applicant dismissed in accordance with valid 90 day trial period clause. Dismissal justified.ARREARS OF WAGES: Applicant volunteer during pre-employment trial. No arrears of wages.GOOD FAITH: Respondent advised applicant of performance concerns and offered additional training. Applicant failed to inform respondent of stress or inability to complete tasks. No breach of good faith. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(b) ; ERA s6 ; ERA s67A ; ERA s67B ; ERA s131 ; Wages Protection Act 1983 |
| Cases Cited | Blackmore v Honick Properties Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 152, [2011] ERNZ 445 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Auckland_311.pdf [pdf 282 KB] |