| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Wellington 104 |
| Hearing date | 13-Jul-17 |
| Determination date | 11 October 2017 |
| Member | T MacKinnon |
| Representation | J Gwilliam ; G Ogilvie |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Mann v Maxam Corporation Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Whether valid 90 day trial period - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: No requirement for a commencement date to be specified. Parties both intended trial period to start at beginning of employment. Trial period valid. Employment terminated within trial period. Notice of termination valid. No unjustified dismissal. Despite valid trial period respondent still obliged by good faith requirements to be responsive and communicative. Respondent refused to give applicant reasons for termination. Applicant greatly upset by refusal and caused her to leave work immediately and not work out notice. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $1,500 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,500) ; Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4 ; ERA s4(1A) ; ERA s67(2) ; ERA s67A ; ERA s67B ; ERA s67B(2) ; ERA s67B(5)(a) ; ERA s67B(5)(b) ; ERA s103 ; ERA s114 ; ERA s115 ; ERA s120 ; ERA s128 |
| Cases Cited | Blackmore v Honick Properties Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 152, [2011] ERNZ 445;Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy (2009) Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 111, [2010] ERNZ 253 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Wellington_104.pdf [pdf 254 KB] |