Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No CA 72/08
Hearing date 19 Feb 2008
Determination date 22 May 2008
Member H Doyle
Representation M Elliott ; G Riach
Location Christchurch
Parties Mitalas v Eustruct Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Misconduct - Respondent accepted dismissal unjustified - Authority considered facts leading up to and including dismissal to determine question of remedies - Applicant developed back pain while at work - Visited doctor and filled out ACC form for workplace injury - Inadvertently provided wrong date for injury - Applicant later dismissed for dishonestly filing ACC claim and threatening behaviour during meeting with director - No investigation conducted into serious allegations - Less likely applicant aware of requirement to fill in incident report for injury - Failure to fill out form did not amount to contribution - Heated discussion with director not contributory conduct in context - Applicant just advised would be without work for 2-3 months and that respondent did not believe he suffered work injury - No standalone threat made against company when issue of minimum hours raised by applicant - Applicant entitled to be treated in accordance with employment agreement - Applicant entitled to remedies - First week's ACC earnings related compensation owing - Interest 9 percent - Applicant also sought reimbursement for fines received while driving company car - Fined as car lacked warrant of fitness - Faulty speedometer meant also fined for speeding - Reimbursement appropriate
Result Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($5,857.10) Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000) ; Arrears of wages ($720) ; Interest (9%) ; Expenses ($340)(Fines) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A;ERA Second Schedule cl11
Cases Cited Salt v Fell [2006] ERNZ 449
Number of Pages 15
PDF File Link: ca 72_08.pdf [pdf 55 KB]