| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Christchurch 151 |
| Hearing date | 1-Sep-15 |
| Determination date | 13 October 2015 |
| Member | David Appleton |
| Representation | M Khan (in person), J Duckworth ; C Pidduck |
| Location | Invercargill |
| Parties | Khan v South Pacific Meats Ltd |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Whether grievance raised within 90 days – Whether respondent consented to raising out of time - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by change in duties, respondent’s failure to investigate complaints and respondent’s failure to re-engage applicant for next season and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – JURISDICTION – Applicant claimed respondent breached immigration laws - Whether Authority can consider breach of immigration law - Seasonal workers – Halal auditor |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE: Applicant did not complain about respondent’s failure to investigate until filing evidence at Authority. Grievance not raised within 90 days. Respondent did not object to late raising and addressed allegation in witness statement. Respondent impliedly consented to raising of grievance out of time.;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent received some letters of complaint from applicant regarding other staff behaviour. Respondent completely failed without reason to investigate applicant’s complaints. Respondent contractually entitled to ask applicant to perform other duties and applicant aware some normal duties had diminished. Upon start of new season, respondent did not require two halal auditors. Respondent entitled to choose other former employee with longer service. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to investigate complaints. Applicant’s employment terminated by expiry of valid fixed term employment agreement when mutually agreed conditions satisfied. No dismissal. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $2,500 compensation appropriate.;JURISDICTION: Authority does not have jurisdiction under New Zealand immigration legislation to consider breaches of immigration law. In any case, applicant failed to put expert evidence about immigration law to Authority. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,500) ; Applications dismissed (unjustified dismissal)(jurisdiction) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s 66;ERA s66(4);ERA s103(1);ERA s103A;ERA s114;ERA s114(1);ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Commissioner of Police v Hawkins [2009] NZCA 209, [2009] 3 NZLR 381;EN Ramsbottom Ltd v Chambers [2007] 2 ERNZ 97 (CA);Hawkins v Commissioner of Police [2007] ERNZ 762 (EmpC);Ngawharau v Porirua Whanau Centre Trust [2015] NZEmpC 89;Muollo v Rotaru [1995] 2 ERNZ 414 (EmpC);O’Meara v Stanley Works Pty Ltd [2006] AIRC 496;Principal of Auckland College of Education v Hagg [1997] 2 NZLR 537 (CA);Rheinberger v Huxley Marketing Pty Ltd (1996) 67 IR 154 (IRC);Scarborough v Micron Security Products Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 183;Sharpe v MCG Group Pty Ltd [2010] FWA 2357;Turners v Talley’s Group Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 31, [2013] ERNZ 12;Woods v N J Ellingham & Co Ltd [1977] 1 NZLR 218 (SC) |
| Number of Pages | 20 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Christchurch_151.pdf [pdf 333 KB] |