| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Christchurch 187 |
| Hearing date | 27-Nov-15 |
| Determination date | 30 November 2015 |
| Member | David Appleton |
| Representation | P Cahill ; Y Zhang |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Lumb-Vaipapa v B & Y Trust Co 2015 Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – 90 day trial – Cook |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: 90 day trial period clause in employment agreement did not specify exact length of trial. Clause did not meet statutory requirements so invalid. Respondent did not have sufficient evidence to back up concerns that applicant broke equipment and had not given applicant warnings about behaviour in any case. Respondent did not give raise concerns with applicant or give applicant opportunity to explain and have explanations be considered. Applicant not afforded right to support person. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $683 reimbursement of lost wages. $12,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($683.95) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($12,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1)(c);ERA s6(1);ERA s6(2);ERA s6(3);ERA s67A;ERA s67A(2)(a;ERA s67B;ERA s67B(1);ERA s103A;ERA s120;ERA s124;ERA s128;ERA s157(1) |
| Cases Cited | Blackmore v Honick Properties Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 152, [2011] ERNZ 445;Hall v Dionex Pty Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 29;Orakei Group (2007) Ltd v Doherty (No 1) [2008] ERNZ 345;Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy (2009) Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 111, [2010] ERNZ 253 |
| Number of Pages | 22 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Christchurch_187.pdf [pdf 293 KB] |