| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 128/07 |
| Hearing date | 22 May 2007 - 23 May 2007 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 01 November 2007 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | G Slevin ; B Nathan |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | D v M |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct - Summary dismissal - Applicant lived and worked on respondent's farm - No written employment agreement - Respondent’s son claimed applicant sexually abused him – Respondent also claimed applicant removed daughter’s nappies at respondent’s home - Respondent called Police about allegations, and told applicant to leave farm immediately – Applicant denied allegations but said would have done same thing – Respondent claimed did not intend to dismiss, rather sole concern safety of children – Son did not disclose any sexual abuse during Police investigation – Insufficient evidence to support prosecution – Respondent called applicant and told him was “off the hook” – Applicant told respondent was “going to get him” – Likely applicant referring to pursuing employment rights - Applicant subjected to verbal abuse and physical assault when allegations revealed in community – Non-trespass order served on applicant – Absence of documentation covering terms of employment agreement and alleged warnings raised significant difficulties for Authority - Respondent claimed employment fixed term and to end after lambs sold - No evidence fixed term complied with requirements of s66 Employment Relations Act 2000 - Employment not fixed term - Authority found applicant left farm at direction of respondent, and solely because of untested allegations – Failed to address employment situation at all – No investigation carried out – Police investigation meant substantive basis for sending away eroded significantly – Respondent took no steps to address applicant on how inevitable termination could be resolved, or to reach settlement when was open to it – Applicant’s statement would have done same thing did not absolve respondent of its obligations – In circumstances, relationship irretrievable – However, respondent not relieved of obligations to do whatever fair and reasonable for applicant – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies - Interest 9.5 percent on lost wages - ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Holiday pay due and owing - Interest 9.5 percent - Permanent name suppression of parties and witnesses ordered |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($6,571)(4 months) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($917.30) ; Interest (9.5%) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($12,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s66;ERA s66(4);ERA s66(4)(a);ERA s66(4)(b);ERA s103A;ERA s128(2) |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 128_07.pdf [pdf 52 KB] |