| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Auckland 343 |
| Hearing date | 3-Nov-17 |
| Determination date | 07 November 2017 |
| Member | T Tetitaha |
| Representation | M Harrison ; S McBeath Rudkin |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hughes v Primogrow Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether applicant permanent or casual employee – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – COSTS – Applicant sought contribution towards costs – Orchard Worker |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: No employment agreement. Applicant paid 8% of his gross wage on a pay-as-you-go basis. No evidence to suggest parties engaged in daily or weekly offers of work. Parties had no mutual obligations between periods of employment. Applicant was casual employee.UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent did not raise concerns with applicant about his commitment or allow him an opportunity respond to concerns. Applicant dismissed by text message during a period of employment. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: 50 per cent contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $2,145 reimbursement of lost wages. $1,000 compensation appropriate. COSTS: Half day investigation meeting. Respondent to pay $2,250 contribution towards costs. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,145) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,000) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($2,250) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s124;ERA s128 |
| Cases Cited | Bay of Plenty District Health Board v Rahiri [2016] NZEmpC 67;Goodfellow v Building Connexion Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 82;Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd [2009] ERNZ 225 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Auckland_343.pdf [pdf 164 KB] |