| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2018] NZERA Auckland 37 |
| Hearing date | 1-Feb-18 |
| Determination date | 02 February 2018 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | R Samuels ; B Cole |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Lang v Gourmet Foods Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether valid 90 day trial period – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – COSTS – Applicant sought contribution towards costs – Customer Service Representative |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND – JURISDICTION: Applicant signed employment agreement containing trial period clause after she had already completed two days’ employment. Trial period invalid. UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Process leading to dismissal was defective. Respondent did not raise concerns with applicant and allow opportunity to respond. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: Respondent to pay applicant $1,989 reimbursement of lost wages. $8,000 compensation appropriate. COSTS: Less than half day investigation meeting. Applicant incurred $2,647 in costs. Applicant’s representative unregulated advocate and does not have expenses and obligations of qualified and registered counterparts. Appropriate to decrease daily tariff. Respondent to pay applicant $1,000 contribution towards costs. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($1,989) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1,000) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s67A ; ERA s67A(3) ; ERA s67B ; ERA s103(3)(a) ; ERA s103A(5) ; ERA s124 ; ERA s174E |
| Cases Cited | Blackmore v Honick Properties Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 152, [2011] ERNZ 445 Stormont v Peddle Thorp Aitken Ltd [2017] NZEmpC 71, (2017) 14 NZELR 789 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2018_NZERA_Auckland_37.pdf [pdf 184 KB] |