| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Auckland 385 |
| Hearing date | 10-Nov-16 |
| Determination date | 23 November 2016 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | J Dewar ; S Scott |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Rhodes v Modern Transport Engineers (2002) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Incapacity – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Painter |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Evidence as a whole did not establish that respondent’s assumption concerning applicant’s fitness to work one a fair and reasonable employer could have made. Applicant not given proper opportunity to seek advice about prospect of dismissal or get informed opportunity to provide feedback. Respondent did not more than cursory consideration to possible alternative positions. Applicant did not get opportunity to address decision-maker directly. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $5,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(b) ; ERA s4(1A)(c) ; ERA s103A(2) ; ERA s103A(3) ; ERA s103A(5) ; ERA s124 ; ERA s174 ; ERA s174B ; ERA s174E |
| Cases Cited | Barry v Wilson Parking New Zealand (1992) Ltd [1998] 1 ERNZ 545 (EmpC) ; Fagotti v Acme Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 135, (2015) NZELR 1 ; Hoskins v Coastal Fish Supplies Ltd [1985] ACJ 124 (AC) ; Irvine Frieghtlines Ltd v Cross [1993] 1 ERNZ 424 (EmpC) ; PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808 (EmpC) ; Quinn v BNZ [1991] 1 ERNZ 1060 (LC) ; Telecom New Zealand Ltd v Nutter [2004] 1 ERNZ 315 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Auckland_385.pdf [pdf 210 KB] |