| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 71/06 |
| Hearing date | 29 Mar 2006 |
| Determination date | 18 May 2006 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | T Shaw, M Dirkzwager ; M Cleverly |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Gillan v RDF&F Catering Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant's previous employer sold business and current employer took over business - Agreed applicant would work for current employer (respondent) - Conflict in evidence - Applicant employed part time - Agreed she could have school holidays off if possible, so could look after her two children - Trial period - Dispute over length of trial period - Not sufficient evidence to conclude respondent removed original page of employment agreement and replaced with new page - During school holidays applicant went into work to collect wages - Alleged was ignored by respondent - Two weeks later respondent phoned and asked applicant to come in for discussion - Dispute over what was discussed - Preferred applicant's evidence - Applicant called in to discuss performance issues - Not accepted respondent was trying to work out new roster as alleged - More probable than not that respondent referred to other workers being paid less and raised various criticisms of applicant's work - Matters alleged included too many mistakes with till, smokes not properly put away, annoying respondent with petty issues, and putting too many pies in pie warmer - Applicant not asked to provide explanation - Applicant rightly concluded respondent was terminating relationship - Respondent denied relying on end of trial period for dismissal so not relevant for present purposes - Dismissal without notice or pay in lieu at meeting - Fair and reasonable employer would have given proper notice of concerns and opportunity to respond before deciding to change hours of work - No fair employer would have wanted to use situation as opportunity to negotiate reduction in rate of pay - Length of service two months with current employer - Remedies - Recognised that employment was of short duration and respondent was a small business, presumably with limited ability to meet award of compensation - Those factors supported modest award - Applicant initially indicated should receive $2,000 as minimum - Though counsel argued she should not now be bound by figure nominated without benefit of advice, considered good indication of what applicant thought necessary to restore her to previous position - Since respondent disavowed any reliance on expiry of probationary period for decision not to have applicant resume previous hours, complaints about applicant during period could not amount to contributory conduct |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,500)(11 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 71_06.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |