| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 227/08 |
| Hearing date | 25 Jun 2008 |
| Determination date | 02 July 2008 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | K Single ; no appearance |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Gunfield v Real Cool Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - No appearance for respondent - Applicant given employment agreement approximately one month after employment began - Agreement contained three month probation period - Applicant later given a different employment agreement (“EA”) which she checked, signed, and returned to respondent but was not given copy to keep - When applicant asked about EA respondent’s administrator (“C”) told her she was not very good at the work and would not be staying longer than three months anyway - Applicant concerned employment would be terminated after three months - C told her could continue working with no agreement until end of month or until C decided - Applicant had meeting with manager and person who originally hired her (“M”) - Applicant understood M working for another employer - Applicant offered position with other employer on three month trial period - Applicant understood employment with respondent to have ended - Next day applicant told to train her replacement - New employer contacted applicant and told her to commence employment - Subsequently told no place for her with new employer - Matters between applicant and new employer resolved - Respondent claimed applicant on three month fixed term agreement and attached employment agreement as evidence - Authority determined EA not agreement given to and signed by applicant - Given time taken to supply agreement and odd formatting, concluded was poor and inadequate attempt to produce agreement supporting claim of fixed term agreement - No evidence applicant employed on fixed term agreement - Applicant never told of any reason to necessitate fixed term agreement - Applicant employed on permanent agreement with three month probationary period - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Applicant attempted to mitigate loss - Respondent to pay $9,230.76 in lost remuneration - Applicant deeply hurt and humiliated by dismissal and manner in which effected - Compensation of $8,000 appropriate - PENALTIES - Applicant sought penalty for failure to provide written employment agreement - Employment agreement provided albeit after employment commenced - No penalty awarded - Applicant also sought penalty for failure to supply time and wage records - Records provided after Statement of Problem lodged - Request for records to be complied with immediately - Penalty of $1,000 awarded, payable to Crown - COSTS - Applicant sought costs related to mediation be taken into account as direction had to be issued and respondent did not participate in good faith - Authority prepared to take into account fact that direction to mediation involved additional costs to applicant - Respondent to pay applicant $1,000 costs |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($9,230.76) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000) ; Application granted (Penalty for failure to supply wage and time records)($1,000)(Payable to Crown) ; Application dismissed (Penalty for failure to provide written employment agreement) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1,800) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($28.90)(Photocopying) ($70)(Filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s65;ERA s128;ERA s130(2) |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 227_08.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |