| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 173/04 |
| Hearing date | 4 Nov 2004 |
| Determination date | 14 December 2004 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | G Ogilvie ; A Drake |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | De Sai v The Simpl Group Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant dismissed for not meeting condition of employment - Condition of employment to provide confirmation of previous role within 12 weeks - Confirmation not provided - Genuine belief by respondent that applicant misrepresented own experience and made false and misleading representations - Disciplinary process - Applicant accepted had not fulfilled condition - During disciplinary meeting respondent alleged applicant had been moonlighting which applicant denied - Respondent had been monitoring emails and knew applicant had been sending out CV - Even if lying had been at issue in present case not entrapment - Dismissal justified - ARREARS OF WAGES - Respondent should have paid one month's notice of termination - Monies due and owing COUNTERCLAIM - DAMAGES - Respondent sought damages allegedly suffered due to applicant's misrepresentation - Insufficient evidence to conclude applicant's role in previous job was anything significantly different to one represented to respondent - Counterclaim dismissed |
| Result | Application dismissed (Unjustified dismissal) ; Arrears of wages (One month's notice) ; Application dismissed (Counterclaim) ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Murphy v Van Beek [1998] 3 ERNZ 736;NZ Engineering etc IUOW v Vehicle Assemblers of NZ Ltd [1991] 3 NZILR 792 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |