Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No CA 88/06
Hearing date 18 Apr 2006
Determination date 13 June 2006
Member H Doyle
Representation A Webber ; R Webby
Location Christchurch
Parties Muollo v Punt Painting and Waterblasting Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy - Whether dismissed or redundant – Applicant 17 years old - Applicant alleged managing director dismissed him after saying he was too young and needed to be “more mature to cope with a bit of flak” – Managing director claimed meeting held to discuss future of applicant’s job given lack of work available and he was made redundant – Applicant alleged subjected to harassment and bullying from older workers and had difficulties with yard manager – Managing director largely unaware of bullying but knew yard manager’s view of applicant – Applicant claimed he was replaced by another employee, “C” – C started work while applicant still employed but moved to work within yard (because he was on home detention) after applicant’s employment terminated – Managing director alleged staff meeting held to discuss possible redundancies but Authority concluded no mention of redundancies prior to dismissal – Significant dispute over what occurred at dismissal meeting – Applicant claimed it was short and to the point, and he was very disappointed by dismissal – Directors said applicant was offered time to consider matter, given opportunity to comment and appeared pleased with outcome – Evidence fell well short of establishing genuine restructuring or redundancy – Unjustified dismissal – Remedies – Compensation recognised absence of any genuine substantive reason for dismissal and absence of any fair process – Length of service 2ï¾½ months - General yard hand
Result Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($3,918)(13 weeks less earnings) ; Compensation for humiliation ($9,000) ; Costs reserved
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: ca 88_06.pdf [pdf 47 KB]