| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 110/06 |
| Hearing date | 21 Feb 2006 |
| Determination date | 28 July 2006 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | J Goldstein ; H Van Schreven |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Whitehouse v Moorhouse Construction Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Employment agreement unsigned but recognised by respondent as governing relationship - Applicant issued written warnings regarding performance and requested to attend meeting - At start of meeting told would not be dismissed - Dismissed at meeting for refusing to carry out instructions and follow protocols - Previous warnings taken into account - Applicant not advised employment at risk, instead told position under review" - Authority strongly of view review required employer to put concerns on table, invite and listen to response, and take time to consider response before deciding course of action - Did not happen here - Not advised entitled to have representative present - Significant as required by employment agreement - Authority also firmly of view that had parties had legal representation at meeting outcome would likely have been significantly different - Unjustifiably disadvantaged by first warning and by being denied right to respond to it - Procedure so flawed and lacking in natural justice that issue of contribution negated - Meeting outcome not predetermined but resulted from Director's loss of composure - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Applicant sought lost remuneration from dismissal to date of investigation - Respondent argued could not be expected to pay applicant who decided to enter own business and was unable to draw on its proceeds for significant period - Length of service 23ï¾½ months - Construction Manager" |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($13,000) ; Arrears of holiday pay (6 percent of lost wages) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($17,000) ; Arrears of wages (bonuses)(Quantum to be determined) ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Trotter v Telecom Corporation of NZ Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 110_06.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |