| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 21/02 |
| Determination date | 07 February 2002 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | K Nicolson ; B Stainton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Wallis v Gersco Investments Ltd t/a The Mermaid Bar |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Whether dismissal or resignation - Serious misconduct - Alleged dismissal due to pregnancy - Requested reduction in hours - Whether applicant implied to manager reduction was agreed to - Believed deliberately manipulated situation - No opportunity to clarify intentions - No opportunity to explain or mitigate conduct - No unbiased consideration of explanation - Failed to give warning about reason for meeting - No chance for representation - Failed to meet minimum requirements of procedural fairness - Dismissal was unjustified - Evidence indicated deliberately attempted to manipulate situation - Contributory conduct 50 percent - Receptionist |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,000)(4 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000 reduced to $1,500) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;NZ Timber Workers Union v Cuthbertson t/a Rolleston Timber [1989] 1 NZILR 1014 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |