| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Christchurch 129 |
| Hearing date | 5 Apr & 16 May 2016 |
| Determination date | 02 August 2016 |
| Member | Christine Hickey |
| Representation | J Stringer; G Herbert |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Bazley and Ors v Country Hospitality Management (NZ) Ltd |
| Other Parties | Tuuta; The Executors of the Estate of Mary Bazley |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – 90 day trial – Receptionist |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant undertook work tasks during trial and was paid for time, although respondent may not have intended to pay her. Respondent did not tell applicant she should not have been paid. Applicant employee during week of trial. Applicant already employed when applicant signed employment agreement. 90 day trial provision invalid. Respondent summarily dismissed applicant, possibly unintentionally. Respondent did not comply with procedural fairness requirements. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $3,971 reimbursement of lost wages. $6,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($3,971.06) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s6;ERA s67A;ERA s67A(3);ERA s67B;ERA s67B(1);ERA s67B(2);ERA s103A;ERA s128(2);ERA s174;Law Reform Act 1936 s3 |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 160, [2011] ERNZ 466;Blackmore v Honick Properties Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 152, [2011] ERNZ 445;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 | 18 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Christchurch_129.pdf [pdf 288 KB] |