| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 115/06 |
| Hearing date | 30 May 2006 |
| Determination date | 03 August 2006 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | P Fagan ; A Cressey |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Glen v Modern Teaching Aids (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Employment agreement specified six month probationary period and one week notice period - Notice period one month on completion of probation - Respondent based in Australia - Applicant advised in telephone discussion redundant with immediate effect - Dispute over discussion and notice period - Question fundamentally about consultation - Short telephone discussion only consultation" before redundancy - Preferred applicant's recollection - Even if preferred respondent's would have had no difficulty concluding consultation so inadequate as to make decision to terminate unfair - Appearance of pre-determination - Such peremptory consultation could not comply with good faith obligations - Even if applicant could not be redeployed employer acting in good faith would have been prepared to be flexible as to matters such as notice - Applicant produced letter apparently written by superior ending probationary period and confirming permanent employment - Respondent disputed authenticity of letter and superior's authority to end probationary period early - Claimed letter hearsay -Superior not available to give evidence, but his direct evidence would have been admissible - Authority's equity and good conscience jurisdiction also allowed letter as evidence if assisted investigation - Likely letter originated from superior - Applicant reasonably believed it represented respondent's views - Doctrine of undisclosed principal applied entitling applicant to believe probationary period ended - On balance of probabilities belief reasonable - Respondent bound by letter - Unjustified dismissal - ARREARS OF WAGES - Notice period one month - Arrears due and owing - PENALTY - Respondent's actions not sufficiently extreme - Length of service five months - Sales representative" |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,537.54) ; Arrears of wages ($2,812.50)(notice) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s4(4)(c), Evidence Amendment Act (No 2)1980 s3 |
| Cases Cited | Aoraki Corporation Ltd v McGavin [1998] 1 ERNZ 601;Communications etc Workers Union v Telecom New Zealand [1993] 2 ERNZ 429;Phipps v NZ Fishing Industry Board 1 ERNZ 195 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 115_06.pdf [pdf 43 KB] |