| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Auckland 71 |
| Hearing date | 14-Dec-15 |
| Determination date | 04 March 2016 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | S Austin ; C Sutherland (in person) |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hale v Sutherland |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – 90 day trial – ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY – Applicant sought arrears of wages and holiday pay |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant previously employed by respondent. Respondent unable to rely on 90 day trial period. Respondent did not investigate any concerns with applicant, raise concerns with applicant or give applicant opportunity to respond. Fair and reasonable employer could not have made decision to dismiss in circumstances. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant reimbursement of lost wages, quantum to be determined. $5,000 compensation appropriate.ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY: Applicant entitled to be paid for public holidays that would otherwise be working days. Respondent to pay applicant arrears of wages and holiday pay, quantum to be determined. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (quantum to be determined) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Arrears of wages and holiday pay (quantum to be determined) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s67A ; ERA s67B ; ERA s103A ; ERA s103A(3) ; ERA s103A(5) ; ERA s128(2) ; ERA s128(3) ; ERA s174E |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (No 2) [2011] NZEmpC 160, [2011] ERNZ 466 ; Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy [2010] NZEmpC 111, [2010] ERNZ 253 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Auckland_71.pdf [pdf 133 KB] |