| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Wellington 134 |
| Hearing date | 1 Mar 2016 - 3 Mar 2016 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 07 November 2016 |
| Member | M Ryan |
| Representation | G Dewar ; L Brown |
| Location | Napier |
| Parties | Priest v Prestige Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by instruction to stay at depot and written warning – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Quality assessor |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Fair and reasonable employer could not require employees to stay at depot without first ensuring that property properly complied with necessary standards. Instruction to stay at depot unlawful and unreasonable. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by imposition of written warning. Inappropriate for performance improvement plan to contain component to monitor applicant’s compliance to stay at depots but plan not unjustifiable. Respondent conducted fair investigation in circumstances. Respondent fairly able to form reasonable belief that applicant had misrepresented actions. Open to respondent to regard omissions as serious misconduct. Dismissal justified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $5,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A ; ERA s124 ; ERA s174C(3) ; ERA s174C(4) |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards & Hostesses of New Zealand IUOW v Air New Zealand Ltd [1990] 3 NZLR 549 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Wellington_134_amended.pdf [pdf 107 KB] |