| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 276/08 |
| Hearing date | 21 May 2008 |
| Determination date | 04 August 2008 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | D Collins ; T Vercauteren |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Dean v Superdockets Advertising Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant incorrectly paid for lunch breaks – Applicant accepted not entitled to be paid for lunch breaks and should repay money – Respondent sought monies repaid – Applicant claimed account’s manager (“S”) agreed applicant repay money in instalments – S deducted amount owing from applicant’s wages without advising applicant – Applicant requested meeting with respondent’s director (“V”) to discuss wage deduction and payment for public holidays – Applicant claimed in meeting S called her baby, V said did not care about legalities of wage deductions and V offered to pay applicant two hours’ wages for two public holidays - V accepted may have told applicant did not care about legalities – S accepted told applicant to grow up – Applicant claimed when requested support person was told if left meeting, then left employment – V claimed shocked applicant requested support person – Applicant claimed felt defeated and backed into corner after meeting – Applicant resigned half hour after meeting using resignation letter written two days before meeting – Authority preferred applicant’s evidence of meeting – Authority found applicant had acknowledged owed respondent money for lunch breaks, but had not given unequivocal consent to deduction from wages – Deduction unlawful – Authority found meeting poorly conducted – Found applicant entitled to expect employer to address concerns properly, in good faith – Found not appropriate for employer to tell employee did not care about legalities – Found resignation letter written before meeting, due to applicant’s increasing frustration over wage issues, but only handed in afterwards – Resignation constituted dismissal – Dismissal unjustified - Remedies – Applicant did not look for new employment for months – Authority found applicant did not mitigate loss – No award for lost remuneration – $4,000 compensation appropriate – Arrears of wages to be determined separately |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Wages Protection Act 1983 s5 |
| Cases Cited | Rahts v Criterion Papers NZ Ltd J Scott, 9 December 1992, AT 227A/92 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 276_08.pdf [pdf 21 KB] |