Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2017] NZERA Christchurch 142
Hearing date 16-Aug-17
Determination date 24 August 2017
Member H Doyle
Representation R Ingram ; no appearance
Location Nelson
Parties Kerr v Michelle Kelly t/a Hotel Motueka and Anor
Other Parties Tasman Bay Ltd
Summary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer – Whether applicant employed by first respondent or second respondent – JURISDICTION – Whether valid 90 day trial provision – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Duty Manager
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Clause 3 of Employment Agreement (“EA”) named applicants employer as Ms Kelly. Schedule A of EA referred to the employer as Tasman Bay Ltd, Ms Kelly and Mr Hedges. Payments of wages were made by Tasman Bay. Applicants claim against both first and second respondent accepted. Applicant employed by both first respondent and second respondent. JURISDICTION: Applicant commenced employment before signing EA. Trial provision unable to be relied on by respondent. Applicant not prevented from bringing a personal grievance. No valid trial period. UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant not advised that her employment was in jeopardy if she did not complete a task asked of her. Applicant had no opportunity to respond to any concerns and have those considered before her employment was terminated. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $7,541 reimbursement of lost wages. $10,000 compensation appropriate.
Result Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($7,541.82) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s4 ; ERA s67A ; ERA s67A(2) ; ERA s67A(3) ; ERA s67B(2) ; ERA s103A ; ERA s103A(3) ; ERA s124 ; ERA s128(2) ; ERA s128(3)
Number of Pages 12
PDF File Link: 2017_NZERA_Christchurch_142.pdf [pdf 140 KB]