| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 349/06 |
| Hearing date | 1 Nov 2006 |
| Determination date | 16 November 2006 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | B Spong ; M Henis |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Craib v Windsor Doors Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Applicant made errors during week’s work - Respondent alleged applicant was casual employee, employed to work busy period and as he was making lots of mistakes, would be better he looked for another job – Not satisfied applicant employed on casual basis – Employment agreement never executed but set out basis of employment relationship – Authority satisfied that respondent raised errors with him – However, no time frames provided for attainment of required standards and respondent never turned its mind to whether applicant achieved required standards – Basic elements of procedural fairness not met – Not possible to ascertain whether applicant’s errors and alleged lack of skills were sufficiently serious to justify dismissal or to constitute contributory conduct – Unjustified dismissal - Length of service one week - Production manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (three weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] 1 ERNZ 415;Ioane v Waitakere City Council [2004] 2 ERNZ 194 (CA);NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 349_06.pdf [pdf 39 KB] |