| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 161/08 |
| Hearing date | 22 Jul 2008 |
| Determination date | 24 October 2008 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | B Boivin ; P Lewis |
| Location | Queenstown |
| Parties | Lanuel v P L Design Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed parties agreed applicant’s salary would increase after two month trial period – Issues arose over applicant’s hours of work, but remained unresolved – Applicant claimed that after 5 ï¾½ weeks employment respondent said could increase salary - Applicant processed documents – Applicant dismissed for allegedly unauthorised pay rise – Respondent argued pay rise not agreed to or approved – Authority found on balance of probabilities respondent did not agree to salary increase – Found applicant honestly but mistakenly believed had been granted raise – However, applicant should have had someone else make adjustments – Found respondent should not have let issue of applicant’s hours of work drift on – Found respondent’s comments before dismissal meeting showed that had predetermined dismissal – Breach of natural justice, as determined result before allowing applicant opportunity to be heard – Respondent also gave short notice of dismissal meeting, causing applicant difficulty finding representation – Process adopted by respondent seriously inadequate – Dismissal unjustified - Remedies – Applicant entitled to six weeks lost wages – Authority considered length of employment in determining compensation award – 50 percent contributory conduct because applicant increased salary without authorisation and by not seeking formal approval for reduction in working hours – RECOVERY OF MONIES - COUNTERCLAIM – Respondent sought to recover overpayment of holiday pay and sick leave – Authority noted recovery would normally be prevented where no written employment agreement existed which would entitle respondent to recover overpayment under s6 Wages Protection Act 1983 – However, applicant was respondent’s payroll officer and paid self holiday pay and special leave entitlements before entitled to – Respondent only aware of this after dismissal – Unjust to allow applicant to retain payments – Respondent entitled to recover overpayments - Office manager |
| Result | Application granted (Dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,890.71) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,500) ; Counterclaim granted (Recovery of monies) ; Overpayment of holiday pay and special leave ($1,147.92) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Wages Protection Act 1983 s6 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 161_08.pdf [pdf 39 KB] |