| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Auckland 349 |
| Hearing date | 3-Oct-16 |
| Determination date | 13 October 2016 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | J Lewis ; J Bath |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Lewis v Immigration Guru Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - DISCRIMINATION – Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by irregular wage payments and decision to realign core duties – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – 90 day trial period - Applicant claimed unlawful discrimination on ground of ethnicity – Administrator |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – DISCRIMINATION: 90 day trial period compliant with legislative requirements. Dismissal justified. Irregular payment of wages problem between applicant and bank. Respondent acted appropriately once applicant raised concerns. Applicant paid on due date for payment. No disadvantage. Applicant’s job description included assisting with marketing. Applicant did not object to possibility of marketing to own ethnic community during job interviews. Applicant not required to focus exclusively on marketing. No disadvantage. Applicant did not claim reimbursement of expenses. No discrimination. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s6(1)(b)(ii) ; ERA s67A ; ERA s67B ; ERA s103(1)(b) ; ERA s103(1)(c) |
| Cases Cited | Salad Bowl Ltd v Howe-Thornley [2013] NZEmpC 152, [2013] ERNZ 32 ; Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy (2009) Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 111, [2010] ERNZ 253 |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Auckland_349.pdf [pdf 360 KB] |