Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No [2016] NZERA Christchurch 69
Hearing date 3-Mar-16
Determination date 25 May 2016
Member Helen Doyle
Representation R Thompson ; P Moore
Location Christchurch
Parties Rahman v Initiative! Un Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor Performance – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Whether valid 90 day trial period – ARREARS OF WAGES – Applicant sought arrears of wages – PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for unfair bargaining and failure to provide wage and time records – Marketing coordinator
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Dismissal claim subsumed unjustified disadvantage claim. No unjustified disadvantage. Applicant not employee before employment agreement signed. Trial period had no specified period. Trial period did not comply with statutory requirements. 90 day trial period invalid. Applicant unaware of concerns about performance. Respondent did not put concerns to applicant and did not give reasonable opportunity to respond. Defects in process not minor and resulted in applicant treated unfairly. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $7,436 reimbursement of lost wages. $8,000 compensation for humiliation etc appropriate.;ARREARS OF WAGES: No clear evidence of hours applicant worked. Respondent did not keep formal records about when applicant was working. Respondent to pay applicant $143 arrears of wages.;PENALTY: Applicant able to raise personal grievance because trial period invalid. No unfair bargaining. Wage and time records inadequate. Respondent’s omissions inadvertent and not deliberate. No penalty.
Result Applications granted (unjustified dismissal)(arrears of wages) ; Arrears of wages ($143) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($7,436) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000) ; Applications dismissed (unjustified disadvantage)(penalty) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s67A;ERA s67A(2)(a);ERA s67B;ERA s69;ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3)(a);ERA s103A(3)(d);ERA s123(1)(b);ERA s123(1)(c)(i);ERA s130
Cases Cited Lumb-Vaipapa v B & Y Trust Co 2015 Ltd [2015] NZERA Christchurch 187;Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy (2009) Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 111, [2010] ERNZ 253
Number of Pages 17
PDF File Link: 2016_NZERA_Christchurch_69.pdf [pdf 276 KB]