| Summary |
RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Earlier preliminary investigation held regarding identity of employer – Applicant amended proceedings, citing respondent as employer – Respondent argued applicant raised grievance outside 90 day period – Authority considered applicant’s evidence equivocal, self serving and exaggerated - Authority found grievance raised when applicant lodged amended statement of problem in Authority – Found date outside 90 day period – Authority found exceptional circumstances included situation where employment agreement (“EA”) had no clause on resolution of employment relationship problems - Found applicant had no EA so exceptional circumstances existed – Found applicant raised grievance against other party within 90 day period – Found delay in raising grievance not occasioned by exceptional circumstances - Found although applicant raised grievance with other party, evidence showed clear to applicant that respondent was employer – Found evidence did not establish applicant’s grievances – Found not just to allow grievances to be raised outside 90 day period - ARREARS OF WAGES – Applicant claimed payment of commission on quantum meruit basis for work on project – Applicant claimed respondent promised to award applicant over and above salary for work undertaken on project, as outside scope of job as personal assistant (“PA”) – Authority found applicant’s duties consistent with salaried PA role – Found quantum meruit not applicable – Authority rejected applicant’s argument for additional remuneration based on Contractual Remedies Act 1979 because not claimed in statement of problem, and claim would likely fail anyway - PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for failure to provide written EA – Authority found parties discussed contents of EA but respondent failed to follow up conversation – Found respondent failed to meet legislative requirements, contributing to employment relationship problems – $500 penalty payable to Crown - BREACH OF CONTRACT – GOOD FAITH - PENALTY – Counterclaim – Respondent argued applicant breached good faith by removing computers containing confidential information relating to project – Respondent sought damages and penalty for breach of good faith – Applicant unplugged computer in anger at respondent rejecting applicant’s pay rise proposal – Applicant later removed own computers, containing respondent’s business information - Respondent could not conduct business for two days while negotiating return of information – Authority found applicant knew actions would disrupt respondent’s business – Found good faith conduct included conduct likely to damage employer’s business – Found respondent had no option but to pursue legal avenues to retrieve business information – Found legal costs avoidable if applicant had allowed respondent to retrieve business information – Respondent entitled to legal costs and damages for breach of good faith – Authority declined penalty for breach, as losses recovered through damages – PA |