| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 49/04 |
| Hearing date | 7 Apr 2004 |
| Determination date | 27 April 2004 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | RK Clayton (In person) ; No appearance |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Clayton v Ashwell and Anor |
| Other Parties | Ashwell |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Alleged dismissed for not signing employment agreement - No appearance for respondent - Respondent took over shop where applicant worked - Identity of respondent - Whether employer respondent or respondent's company - Draft agreement left names of employer blank - Onus on respondent to make clear identity of company - By doctrine of undisclosed principal applicant could take proceedings against respondent - Difficulties contacting respondent - Respondent sought matter be adjourned and provided old medical certificate - Decision made to proceed in absence of respondent - Applicant disagreed with draft agreement and refused to sign because no detail in agreement - Respondent advised applicant's husband that applicant was sacked and would only be reinstated when signed agreement - Dismissal substantively and procedurally unjustified - ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant not in position to provide details of gross earnings - More accurate details required to calculated holiday pay - Leave reserved to provide Authority with details of payments - Respondents ordered to pay holiday pay of 6 percent - Remedies - Failure to mitigate loss - Entitled to lost wages for 6 weeks - Shop manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,880) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Arrears of holiday pay (Quantum to be determined) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee) |
| Statutes | ERA Second schedule cl12 |
| Cases Cited | Kruesi v Hamua Holdings Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 135 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |