| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 99/05 |
| Hearing date | 10 Jun 2005 |
| Determination date | 10 June 2005 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | D Gould ; B Young |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Braddock v Wellington Demolition (2002) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Suspension for initially two weeks had continued for 15 weeks – Alleged constituted dismissal – Applicant approached directors of respondent about a number of concerns: whether the respondent was being sold or closed, whether he was still operations manager, and whether their son (who had returned to assist in the business) was in fact his boss – Also told directors that ex-employee had been recruiting for opposition company – Following day was suspended for two weeks – Several weeks later reasons for suspensions given: alleged applicant not keeping to time with particular jobs, had allowed company property to be removed without payment, had spread rumours about respondent’s financial state, and had attempted to recruit staff off respondent – Suspension in reality turned into an effective dismissal – Suspension and dismissal unjustified in substance and procedure – No evidence applicant guilty of claims against him and no process followed whatsoever – COSTS – Applicant entitled to contribution to costs of $2,000 plus $200 expenses - Operations manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Lost remuneration to date ($14,900.11) ; Three month’s future loss of income ($7,973.42) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($15,000) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($2,000) ; Disbursements ($200) |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 99_05.pdf [pdf 21 KB] |