| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Christchurch 112 |
| Hearing date | 12/07/2016 |
| Determination date | 20 July 2016 |
| Member | David Appleton |
| Representation | C Gordon; L Holland |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Painter v Epic Hair Designs NZ Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance- Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – 90 day trial – Hairstylist |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Pre-employment test did not constitute employment. Applicant did not start work before signing employment agreement. Employment agreement did not permit respondent to pay applicant in lieu of notice, but applicant accepted payment and did not protest it. Respondent able to rely on 90 day trial clause to dismiss applicant. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s5;ERA s6(1);ERA s6(2);ERA s6(3);ERA s67A ;;ERA s67A(3); ERA s67B |
| Cases Cited | Blackmore v Honick Properties Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 152, [2011] ERNZ 445;Harris v TSNZ Pulp & Paper Maintenance Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 43;Salad Bowl Ltd v Howe-Thornley [2013] NZEmpC 152, [2013] ERNZ 326;Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy [2010] NZEmpC 111, [2010] ERNZ 253 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Christchurch_112.pdf [pdf 139 KB] |