| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 122/08 |
| Hearing date | 31 Mar 2008 |
| Determination date | 01 April 2008 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | M Pereira (in person) ; A Rakai-Bower |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Pereira v Johann Stehlin (2006) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Respondent conceded dismissal not procedurally ideal but applicant’s conduct disqualified any award of remedies – Applicant informed by father that relative passed away and applicant booked on flight to Samoa early next day – Applicant failed to contact manager to advise of situation – Applicant claimed told co-worker to pass on leave information – Authority accepted applicant sent at least 10 text messages to manager – Manager argued only received one text message from applicant claiming would be away for two weeks and never received message from co-worker – Upon return to New Zealand received text message from manager stating not to attend work next day – Applicant then told would receive letter and should contact employer – Manager said would meet applicant at worksite when applicant sought confirmation of wages – Applicant attended meeting but manager did not attend and left applicant’s wages – Applicant contacted manager again who said wait for letter – Authority found respondent then told applicant dismissed as respondent not making money while applicant employed – Applicant received letter stating dismissed because of absenteeism – Authority found respondent callous as content to simply permit applicant learn of dismissal when retrieved mail – Found only because of applicant’s demand was dismissal communicated – Found unfair not to have permitted applicant opportunity to be heard – Authority found suspicious both redundancy and absenteeism given as justification for termination – Respondent previously taken no issue with applicant’s unauthorised absences – Authority accepted evidence of steps taken by applicant to both inform respondent and elicit consent – Authority also inferred manager elected not to respond to applicant – Authority found wrong of respondent to make no attempt to discuss matter with applicant – Found wrong to allow applicant to work full day when decision already made to dismiss – Authority concluded dismissal devoid of any procedural fairness and substantively unjustified – Remedies – Authority found prolonged absence blameworthy as unauthorised – Found applicant should have done more to fix respondent with knowledge of circumstances – Authority found 10 percent contributory conduct appropriate – Found respondent should not be liable for applicant not using established skills to earn income – Reimbursement of lost wages declined – Authority satisfied loss of dignity and injury to feelings justified $3600 compensation – Hairdresser |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,0000 reduced to $3,600) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 122_08.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |