| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Christchurch 44 |
| Hearing date | 8-Dec-15 |
| Determination date | 14 April 2016 |
| Member | Christine Hickey |
| Representation | A Oberndorfer ; J Jones |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Reiher & Anor v Kershevin Farms Ltd |
| Other Parties | Morgan |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy - Applicants claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by having to work without days off and not being paid properly, respondent’s directors’ (“D”) unannounced visits to home, D’s attempts to force second applicant to return to work while recovering from birth and threatening to reduce second applicant’s salary or replace her if she took maternity leave – Applicants claimed unjustifiably dismissed – ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY – Applicants sought arrears of wages and holiday pay - COUNTERCLAIM – RECOVERY OF MONIES – Respondent sought recovery of monies to cover farm costs and cleaning applicants’ house – Farm manager |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: First applicant disadvantaged by having to work every day. Fair and reasonable employer would not have expected first applicant to work every day. Applicants had rights to quiet enjoyment of lease. D’s presence at house in contravention of applicants’ wishes about communication disadvantaged applicants. D’s threat to stop or reduce second applicant’s pay during pregnancy caused extra stress and disadvantaged applicant. Applicants unjustifiably disadvantaged. Respondent did not consult applicants about sale of farm. Respondent did not provide any financial evidence of business issues. Respondent failed to comply with employment agreement term concerning redundancies. Applicants unjustifiably dismissed. REMEDIES; No contribution conduct. $12,000 compensation appropriate.;ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY: Respondent not entitled to withhold applicants’ final pay. Respondent failed to pay first applicant for some days worked. Respondent to pay first applicant $7,378 arrears of wages and holiday pay and second applicant $2,528 arrears of wages and holiday pay.;COUNTERCLAIM – RECOVERY OF MONIES: No proof that cows needed to be replaced due to applicants’ mismanagement. Insufficient evidence that cause of cows being dried of fault of applicants. Insufficient proof that applicants’ decision to engage vet unreasonable. No proof that respondent paid anyone to clean at end of tenancy, or that cleaning necessary. No recovery of monies. |
| Result | Applications granted (unjustified disadvantage)(unjustified dismissal)(arrears of wages and holiday pay) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000)(first applicant)($6,000)(second applicant) ; Arrears of wages and holiday pay ($7,378.76)(first applicant)($2,528.66)(second applicant) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c) |
| Cases Cited | Rittson-Thomas t/a Totara Hills Farm v Davidson [2013] NZEmpC 39, [2013] ERNZ 55 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Christchurch_44.pdf [pdf 264 KB] |