| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 11/07 |
| Hearing date | 2 Nov 2006 - 18 Dec 2006 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 18 January 2007 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | M Young ; S Sharma |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Barry v Anoop Investments Ltd and Ors |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - No written employment agreement - Identity of employer - First respondent company and its directors named respondents - Applicant believed director personally employed him - Authority satisfied first respondent applicant's employer - ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicant claimed agreed to work no less than 40 hour weeks and sought arrears when rostered less than 40 - Not credible applicant would have waited to assert agreement - No agreement applicant to work minimum of 40 hours - Respondent presented new roster reducing applicant's hours - Authority not satisfied respondent conducted transparent consultation process - Applicant did not agree to permanent reduction - Implementation of roster breached terms of employment agreement - Respondent ordered to pay arrears for days applicant rostered off as result of reduction until resignation - Insufficient evidence parties agreed to loyalty bonus - Bonus claim dismissed - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Respondent told applicant could not afford to employ him and to look for other employment - Applicant raised arrears claim and personal grievance - Claimed employment relationship deteriorated and put under stress causing his resignation - Breach did not cause resignation as reduction issue ongoing over period of year - Other alleged breaches not sufficiently serious that risk of resignation reasonably foreseeable, and allegations not raised with respondent - No constructive dismissal - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVATANGE - Disadvantage claim out of time - PENALTY - Respondent failed to provide written employment agreement - Failure created uncertainty about terms of employment - However, intended to provide written employment agreements to staff but overlooked applicant - Oversight not wilful avoidance of s65 Employment Relations Act 2000 obligations - Penalty declined - Butchery manager |
| Result | Applications dismissed (Unjustified dismissal, unjustified disadvantage) ; Arrears of wages (Quantum to be determined) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s65;ERA s114 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW Inc [1994] 1 ERNZ 168 ; [1994] 2 NZLR 415 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 11_07.pdf [pdf 69 KB] |