| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 160/08 |
| Hearing date | 12 Mar 2008 |
| Determination date | 30 April 2008 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | A Taylor ; M Pahi |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Crown v Tiroa E" & Te Hape "B" Trust" |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Respondent trusts with close wh�nau relationships with employees – Misunderstanding and argument occurred between applicant and farm manager (“W”) – W complained to member of respondent’s Board responsible for employment issues (“M”) – M arranged Board meeting - Applicant given letter on arrival to read in meeting – W present at meeting – Discussion became heated – Applicant left meeting in frustration claiming not given opportunity to speak – Applicant visited M seeking advice to resolve dispute – Email dialogue took place between Board members – Email correspondence escalated allegations from failing to comply with lawful instruction to applicant accusing W of lying, using abusive and threatening language towards Board and showing unwillingness to resolve matter – M advised Board that W no longer trusted applicant and would not work with applicant – Board dismissed applicant – Board Chair declined applicant’s requests to review dismissal and meet with applicant – Authority found applicant went into disciplinary meeting not aware incident escalated to serious misconduct – Found applicant did not have opportunity to read letter until in meeting room – Letter stated could have support person, but did not advise that employment in jeopardy – Found when applicant entered meeting room no one considered dismissal possible outcome – Found following meeting, allegations escalated to applicant using threatening and abusive behaviour – Failure to put allegations to applicant breached employment agreement – Authority found applicant’s poor conduct at end of disciplinary meeting did not justify respondent’s failure to conduct proper enquiry – Fair and reasonable employer would have advised applicant that employment at stake and given opportunity to reflect and take advice on new allegations - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Authority considered applicant’s poor conduct in meeting – Found applicant intimidated by presence of entire Board and W – Found no evidence applicant threatening or abusive – No contributory conduct – Applicant paid one month’s notice period - Applicant found alternative employment two months after dismissal – Authority awarded four weeks lost wages – Interest awarded – Authority found insufficient evidence to reimburse applicant’s moving costs – Limited evidence of hurt and humiliation – Tenancy Tribunal permitted applicant and family to stay in farm house until employment dispute resolved – Applicant’s requests for mediation met with negative response by respondent – Applicant found new employment quickly which would have reduced ongoing stress – Moderate compensation appropriate - Farm hand |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,541.66) ; Interest (9%) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA Second Schedule cl11 |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] 1 ERNZ 415;Man O’War Farm Limited v Bree [2003] 1 ERNZ 83;North Island Wholesale Groceries Ltd v Hewin [1992] 2 NZILR 176;NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;Toll New Zealand Consolidated Ltd v Rowe [2007] ERNZ 840;X v Auckland District Health Board [2007] 1 ERNZ 66 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 160_08.pdf [pdf 56 KB] |