| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 328/08 |
| Hearing date | 17 Sep 2008 |
| Determination date | 18 September 2008 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | M Nustford ; no appearance |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Syme v Chic-One Ltd t/a Smart Tops Hair and Bauty Salon |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – No appearance for respondent – No written employment agreement (“EA”) – Applicant accepted employment included three month probationary period – Applicant’s relationship with working director (“H”) deteriorated – Applicant received letter from H stating did not like way applicant spoke to staff members and had discussed punctuality five times – Authority accepted applicant’s denial of any knowledge of matters referred to – Applicant one hour late to work having slept in – Applicant sent text message advising late – That afternoon, H told applicant had to let her go and employment relationship not working out – H told applicant other staff did not like her, came into work half drunk and had lost control of her life – Applicant became angry and went outside to cool off before returning to ask about notice period – H advised would have to consult family – Applicant did not hear back from H, so did not work out notice period – Authority found applicant dismissed – Found no evidence to justify dismissal – Found nothing to establish respondent’s reasons for dismissal had substance, and reasons not put to applicant for discussion or explanation – Authority disregarded reference in letter to abandonment of employment - Dismissal unjustified – Remedies - Authority found no contributory conduct with only one instance of lateness – Applicant obtained alternative employment four weeks after dismissal – Found applicant entitled to four weeks lost remuneration – Applicant awarded difference for further two month period between remuneration with respondent and new position - Found $4,000 compensation appropriate - ARREARS OF WAGES – Applicant not paid wages for day of dismissal – Applicant entitled to one day’s wages, less one hour as late - ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY – Applicant claimed did not take any paid annual leave during employment – Authority found applicant entitled to holiday pay for period of employment – PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for failure to provide written EA – Authority found although s65 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) set out obligation to provide written EA, did not contain requisite provision regarding penalties – Found no request for penalty under s63A ERA – No penalty ordered – COSTS – Applicant’s actual costs $843.75 - One hour investigation meeting – Applicant entitled to contribution to costs of $400, plus filing fee - Senior hairstylist |
| Result | Applications granted (dismissal)(arrears of wages)(arrears of holiday pay) ; Application dismissed (penalty) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (6,384.50) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Arrears of wages ($162.50) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($888) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($400) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s63A;ERA s64;ERA s64(2);ERA s65;ERA s65(1);ERA Schedule 2 cl12 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 328_08.pdf [pdf 23 KB] |