| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 165/08 |
| Hearing date | 22 May 2008 |
| Determination date | 28 October 2008 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | B Clark ; M Guest |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Woodman v Portobello Hotel & Bistro Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed - Respondent claimed applicant either resigned or abandoned employment because failed to follow reasonable and lawful instruction - Applicant given instruction to re-clean items in kitchen - Applicant felt items already cleaned to satisfactory standard - Respondent’s chef (“T”) told applicant would terminate employment if attitude did not improve - Applicant worked for another hour then left - Applicant received text from T saying not required to work next working day - Following week applicant told not needed next working day either - Applicant rang respondent to inquire why not needed and told no longer employed - Authority found applicant not dismissed on last working day - Found applicant did not abandon employment - Found evidence clear applicant expected to return to work next working day - Found applicant followed lawful and reasonable instruction and re-cleaned items as requested - Found no disciplinary or dismissal process followed - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Authority accepted evidence from applicant’s co-worker that applicant approached her to enlist support in bringing false sexual harassment claim against T and offered financial inducement to do so - Authority found approach to co-worker made after dismissal and not part of factual matrix surrounding personal grievance claims - Found however, applicant attempted to induce person to make false complaint and then appear under oath in Authority in support of that false accusation was serious matter - Authority found but for that action would have awarded $5,000 compensation but in order to highlight seriousness of applicant’s behaviour in trying to subvert and mislead Authority’s process $1,000 compensation to be made - Respondent to pay reimbursement of lost wages of $2,181 and holiday pay of $174 - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed suffered unjustified disadvantage when hours of work reduced when respondent changed from roster system to fixed hours - Authority found adjustment to applicant’s hours of work breached clauses in employment agreement - Found method respondent used to implement fixed hours system analogous to raffle with staff working during week having opportunity to get hours preferred before those working on weekends - Found applicant not consulted about change and not involved in process of selecting days of work - Found method used reduced applicant’s hours causing applicant to suffer loss - Disadvantage unjustified - Remedies - As consequence of reduction in applicant’s hours respondent to pay applicant $2,237 reimbursement of lost wages and $178 holiday pay - Waitress |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,181.94) ; Holiday pay ($174.55) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,000) ; Application granted (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,237.40) ; Holiday pay ($178.92) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 165_08.pdf [pdf 40 KB] |