| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 220/06 |
| Hearing date | 1 Jun 2006 |
| Determination date | 26 June 2006 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | L Campbell ; D Law |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Wilson v Classic Manufacturing Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Respondent alleged applicant offered employment for six months as trainee and if satisfactory would be offered ‘permanent job’ – No written agreement so probationary term ineffective – After three months respondent met with applicant to review employment – Applicant told things not working out, her other employment was interfering with position, and she was not ‘mongrel enough’ – Applicant given one month’s notice – Respondent had not met minimum requirements for managing poor performance or procedural fairness – Decision to dismiss premeditated - Performance issues not put to applicant and she was not given opportunity to improve – Respondent fell into error because of reliance on probationary arrangement – Unjustified dismissal - Remedies – Earnings out of hours not relevant to assessment of lost wages – PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty against respondent under s63A Employment Relations Act 2000 – Authority not persuaded that penalty prescribed therein was properly imposed outside of bargaining context – Appeared that legislation did not prescribe a penalty in respect of a continuing breach of requirement, at bargaining, to provide employee copy of “intended” individual employment agreement, after bargaining has concluded – Declined to award penalty – Length of service 17 weeks – Trainee production assistant |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($13,299)(31 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s63A;ERA s67;ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 220_06.pdf [pdf 104 KB] |