| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Auckland 398 |
| Determination date | 06 December 2016 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | W Reid ; P Crombie, K Hymers |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | McKenzie v Farmer Motor Group Ltd t/a Farmer Autovillage |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Preliminary issues - Whether adequate notice given – 90 day trial period - Sales consultant |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Employment agreement required four weeks’ notice in writing. Respondent did not comply with contractual obligation to give notice in writing of dismissal. Wording of clause gives meaning that must be applied to use of word “notice” in s 67B of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Requirements of 67B not met. Applicant did not affirm breach. 90 day trial clause not operative. Jurisdiction for Authority to investigate claim. Parties directed to mediation. |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s3(a)(ii) ; ERA s67A ; ERA s67B ; ERA s67B(1) ; ERA s67B(2) ; ERA s174D ; ERA s174E |
| Cases Cited | Blackmore v Honick Properties Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 152, [2011] ERNZ 445 ; Fuel Espresso v Hsieh [2007] NZCA 58, [2007] 2 NZLR 651 ; Healy v Dblshot Ltd [2013] NZERA Auckland 101 ; Hutchison v Canon New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZERA Wellington 72 ; Modern Transport Engineers (2002) Ltd v Phillips [2016] NZEmpC 68 ; Painter v Epic Hair Designs NZ Ltd [2016] NZERA Christchurch 112 ; Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy [2010] NZEmpC 111, [2010] ERNZ 253 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Auckland_398.pdf [pdf 379 KB] |