| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 46/08 |
| Hearing date | 29 Nov 2007 |
| Determination date | 14 February 2008 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | A Drake ; A Maelzer |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Lee v Minor Developments Ltd t/a Before Six Early Education Childhood Centre |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Respondent’s manager (“A”) argued offered applicant casual employment with respondent – A argued provided applicant with standard casual employment agreement (“EA”) – Applicant claimed available to work during week except Friday and weekends – A claimed applicant wanted husband to read EA before signed – Applicant sought letter from A confirming hours of work – A made multiple requests for applicant to return signed EA – Applicant later claimed never received EA – Authority found applicant given casual EA as contended by A – A issued all staff except applicant with new permanent EAs – Applicant provided with casual EA and not new permanent EA because only unsigned casual employee – Applicant did not raise any issues about new EA with A – Applicant’s new EA stated employment “as required” – Downturn in work required respondent to reduce staff hours – Applicant’s hours to be reduced due to casual status and lack of training – Applicant had meeting with A where told would work 3 days a week and additional hours if enrolments increased – Applicant claimed told applicant felt marginalised because believed EA permanent – First time permanency of employment raised with respondent – A argued applicant asked for letter stating in casual employment and never asked to be permanent – A told applicant fully qualified teacher would be employed to assist A and applicant not required over summer period – Applicant told would be contacted again when work increased – Applicant told A not interested in further casual work and going home to look after children – Authority rejected applicants claim fact raised issues about respondent with Ministry of Education reason for redundancy – Authority also rejected applicant’s assertion that made into respondent’s cleaner – Applicant claimed offer of training significant factor in accepting employment with respondent – A denied any commitment by respondent to provide education – Authority found A did not mislead applicant as to Ministry of Education’s requirements – Authority concluded applicant did not express early interest in obtaining a qualification but interest expressed at later date – Authority satisfied A did not make promises to applicant regarding funding for training – Authority found applicant’s employment not irregular as anticipated by unsigned EAs – Authority concluded respondent intended to offer casual work but in practice work permanent part time – Found substantive justification for redundancy – Authority did not accept applicant’s argument that marginalised – Manner in which dismissal effected unfair – No opportunity to be represented and decision predetermined – Dismissal unjustified – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Authority found reduction in hours disadvantaged applicant – No breaches of good faith – Remedies – Authority found being redundancy, no issue of contributory conduct – Found any lost remuneration due to redundancy not personal grievance – Authority found given distress suffered by applicant $2000 compensation appropriate – Reliever caregiver |
| Result | Application granted (Dismissal)(Disadvantage) ; Compensation for humilitation etc ($2000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Barnes v Whangarei RSA [1997] 1 ERNZ 626 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 46_08.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |