| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Auckland 279 |
| Hearing date | 29-Aug-17 |
| Determination date | 14 September 2017 |
| Member | Anna Fitzgibbon |
| Representation | E Moss ; G Pollak |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Welch v Auckland Glass Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether valid 90 trial period – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Glass Sales Person |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;JURISDICTION: Trial provision in Employment Agreement silent as to when the trial period would commence. Statutory requirements for valid trial provision not met. No valid trial period.UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent failed to investigate claims made by other staff. Applicant given no opportunity to respond to respondent’s concerns. Fair and reasonable employer would not have dismissed in the circumstances. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $1,728 reimbursement of lost wages. $5000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($1,728) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s67A;ERA s67A(2);ERA s67B;ERA s103A;ERA s124;ERA s128;ERA s174E |
| Cases Cited | Blackmore v Honick Properties Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 152;Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy (2009) Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 111;Sheard v Sands [2017] NZERA Auckland 281 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Auckland_279.pdf [pdf 250 KB] |