Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Wellington
Reference No WA 95/05
Hearing date 26 May 2005
Determination date 07 June 2005
Member D Asher
Representation G O'Sullivan ; M Gould
Location Wellington
Parties Shacham v Wright Spa Pools Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Dismissed for being unable to undertake lifting duties - Respondent alleged applicant was asked at interview if she was capable of lifting (position required heavy lifting) - Applicant discovered was pregnant after accepting job - Medical advice not to lift weights in excess of 10kg - Dismissed within week of commencing employment for being unable to undertake key duties - Respondent mistakenly assumed applicant knew she was pregnant at time of interview - Not induced to enter into contract by any misrepresentation - Dismissal procedurally unjustified because applicant not advised of purpose of meeting or given opportunity to be represented - Substantively unjustified because not open for respondent to terminate on ground of pregnancy - Inability to lift directly related to pregnancy - Remedies - Short duration of employment, unavoidability of lifting heavy objects and absence of alternative duties meant applicant would probably have been obliged to take unpaid leave or early commencement of maternity leave - Claim for compensation for loss of benefit in failing to qualify for paid parental leave not accepted
Result Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (Two weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($15,000) ; Costs reserved
Statutes Contractual Remedies Act 1979;ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s6(1)(a);ERA s6(1)(b)(ii);ERA s104;ERA s105;Human Rights Act 1993 s21(1);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s7;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s14;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s16;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s49(1)(a)(i);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s49(1)(a)(ii)
Number of Pages 7
PDF File Link: wa 95_05.pdf [pdf 27 KB]