Restrictions Includes non-publication order
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No [2017] NZERA Christchurch 215
Hearing date 15-Dec-17
Determination date 13 December 2017
Member H Doyle
Representation B Pitman (in person) ; K Fleury
Location Dunedin
Parties Pitman v Gillanders and Anor
Other Parties Stafford In Dunedin Ltd
Summary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer – Whether applicant employed by first respondent or second respondent – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Machine Operator and Welder
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Applicant provided with Employment Agreement (“EA”) which listed second respondent as employer. EA supported intention from outset of employment that applicant would be employed by second respondent. Applicant employed by second respondent.UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent did not raise specific concerns with applicant or allow him a reasonable opportunity to respond to concerns. Employer could conclude aggressive conduct from applicant could substantively justify dismissal. Defects in investigation process more than minor and resulted in unfair treatment. Decision to dismiss not one a fair and reasonable employer could have reached in all the circumstances. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: 50 per cent contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $7736 reimbursement of lost wages. $6,000 compensation appropriate. Recommendations not made.
Result Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($7736.55) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3)
Cases Cited Colosimo v Parker (2007) 8 NZELC 98,622 (EmpC);Wilson v Bruce Wilson Painting & Decorating Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 83
Number of Pages 15
PDF File Link: 2017_NZERA_Christchurch_215.pdf [pdf 125 KB]