| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Christchurch 209 |
| Hearing date | 12 Oct 2017 - 22 Nov 2017 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 30 November 2017 |
| Member | P van Keulen |
| Representation | P de Wattignar ; J Copeland |
| Location | Queenstown |
| Parties | Vicencio v Grant James Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – COSTS – Applicant sought contribution towards costs – Housekeeper |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent’s evidence was consistent, credible and preferred over applicants. Applicant displayed confirmation bias and held an overly strong view that she had been dismissed. Applicant rejected respondent’s response to her grievance that her job was still available and effectively resigned. Respondent’s failure to immediately correct applicants misunderstanding did not amount to dismissal. Dismissal justified. COSTS: Two day investigation meeting. Authority found appropriate to raise daily tariff. Appropriate to raise because offer of settlement made which applicant could not better and applicant’s conduct. Appropriate to slightly reduce tariff as respondent unsuccessfully applied for security for costs. Applicant to pay respondent $10,000 contribution towards costs. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs in favour of respondent ($10,000) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Biddle v R [2015] NZHC 2673;Boobyer v Good Health Wanganui Ltd WEC3/94, 24 February 1994 (EmpC);Fagotti v Acme & Co Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 135;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 (EmpC);New Zealand Cards Ltd v Ramsay [2012] NZEmpC 51;R v Biddle [2015] NZDC 8992;Yamilesi Villavicencio v Grant James Ltd [2017] NZERA Christchurch 196 |
| Number of Pages | 18 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Christchurch_209.pdf [pdf 146 KB] |