Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No [2015] NZERA Christchurch 186
Determination date 30 November 2015
Member Christine Hickey
Representation L Ryder, C Davies ; A-J Lodge, G Cooper
Location Christchurch
Parties Self v Receivables Management Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to follow HR policy and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – 90 day trial – Client services representative
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: 90 day trial clause ill-expressed and ambiguous so did not exclude right to bring unjustified dismissal claim. Clause did not meet statutory requirements so invalid. Respondent failed to conduct investigation into concerns about applicant’s personal use of work internet, ask applicant for explanation or give applicant opportunity to have explanation considered. Dismissal unjustified. Unjustified disadvantage claims related to deficiencies in dismissal process relying on same facts as dismissal claim. No need to consider claims separately. No unjustified disadvantage. REMEDIES: 20 per cent contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $5,236 reimbursement of lost wages. $8,000 compensation appropriate.
Result Application granted ; Contributory conduct (20%) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($5,236.95) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s6(1)(b)(i);ERA s67A;ERA s67B;ERA s67B(1);ERA s67B(3);ERA s103(1);ERA s103(1)(a);ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s103(1)(c);ERA s103(1)(d);ERA s103(1)(e);ERA s103(1)(f);ERA s103(1)(g);ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(4);ERA s103(5);ERA s128(2)
Cases Cited Hall v Dionex Pty Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 29;Salt v Fell [2008] NZCA 128, [2008] 3 NZLR 193;Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy [2010] NZEmpC 111, [2010] ERNZ 253
Number of Pages 22
PDF File Link: 2015_NZERA_Christchurch_186.pdf [pdf 306 KB]