| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 233/06 |
| Hearing date | 11 Apr 2006 |
| Determination date | 06 July 2006 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | S Scott ; R Roussell |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Phillips v 646 Victoria (Hamilton) Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - Whether employee or independent contractor - Respondent conceded applicant was employee - Applicant unquestionably an employee - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Applicant sought to introduce new evidence after investigation meeting - Triggered a number of new submissions from both sides - Investigation meeting not reconvened - Evidence at investigation meeting more reliable account of facts - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant walked out of meeting with Manager/Director (MD") - Summarily dismissed when she returned - Respondent conceded dismissal procedurally flawed - Dismissal fell well short of conduct employer required to show to meet objective standard of justification - Dismissal unjustified - Applicant to begin new job with third party ("GDR") when its office opened - Person intending to work - Alleged dismissed from new job at same time by MD acting as director of GDR - MD had significant influence over operations of GDR, but had neither actual nor apparent authority to act for it - Applicant dismissed from new position by GDR's manager - Remedies - Lost remuneration at four weeks as new job would have started four weeks after dismissal - Any cause of action lay with GDR after that date - Length of service one month three weeks - Receptionist" |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,800)(4 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] 1 ERNZ 461 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 233_06.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |