| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 331/08 |
| Hearing date | 19 Aug 2008 |
| Determination date | 22 September 2008 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | K Single ; D Cox, R Cox |
| Location | Tauranga |
| Parties | Lelieveld v Tir Na Nog Enterprises Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Summary dismissal – Applicant dismissed at wedding of respondent’s owners (“D” and “R”) – At wedding reception, family argument occurred due to information applicant relayed to D and R’s families about their relationship – D phoned applicant immediately and left answering machine message summarily dismissing her – Following day, D phoned to confirm dismissal and advised leave keys at shop – Respondent argued justified in dismissing applicant who, through defamation, brought respondent into disrepute and undermined trust and confidence essential to employment relationship – Authority found respondents very upset applicant had destructive effect on wedding day – However, found respondent not entitled to conclude applicant’s conduct amounted to serious misconduct destroying trust and confidence – Found no steps taken to show respondent acted reasonably and with regard to principles of natural justice – Found applicant not put on notice of allegations – Found applicant not advised of right to representation in fair disciplinary process with opportunity to provide explanation – Found no sign of respondent making enquiries with open mind – Found no careful evaluation of results of investigation to determine whether actions constituted serious misconduct – Found actions antithesis of fair and reasonable employer – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies - Found impolitic for applicant to relay personal concerns about relationship, but applicant not responsible for respondent’s family’s reactions – No contributory conduct – Found applicant entitled to lost wages for 11.5 weeks before found new employment – Found dismissal arbitrary, unfair and left applicant shocked and upset - $5,000 compensation appropriate - ARREARS OF WAGES – ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY – Found applicant owed $809.28 unpaid wages and holiday pay – Found PAYE and outstanding loan to be deducted from sum – Authority directed respondent to pay outstanding amount after deductions - Authority noted parties conspired to avoid tax rightly payable on applicant’s earnings – Found practice later rectified so applicant’s hours recorded correctly and appropriate tax paid – Suit hire business employee |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($6,808) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Arrears of wages and arrears of holiday pay (quantum to be determined) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 331_08.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |