| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 403/08 |
| Hearing date | 21 Nov 2008 |
| Determination date | 25 November 2008 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | M Smyth ; No appearance |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Melrose v Weka Group Ltd t/a The Vulcan |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed discriminated against by reason of pregnancy – No appearance by respondent – After seven months employment with respondent, applicant discovered was pregnant – Applicant mentioned pregnancy to respondent – Applicant told demoted to Assistant General Manager and new employee to be General Manager – Respondent told applicant that was underpaid for one shift as took time off during prior shift to visit midwife – Applicant given verbal warning for incorrectly filling in timesheet – Applicant protested warning, arguing had not filled in time sheet as day was statutory holiday – Respondent called meeting with applicant, refusing to say what meeting about – Applicant’s partner attended – At start of meeting, respondent stated meeting had two possible outcomes: resign or be dismissed - Applicant shown video footage of applicant leaving workplace before time on timesheet – Respondent made further allegations of incorrect entries, without providing details or opportunity to view other footage – Applicant refused to resign – Applicant received dismissal letter – Authority found no opportunity to respond to allegations and not provided with all relevant information – Authority satisfied dismissal was because of pregnancy – Applicant not consulted regarding demotion – Dismissal and disadvantage unjustified – Remedies – Applicant entitled to one month’s wages for notice period stipulated in employment agreement – Applicant entitled to reimbursement of lost wages until date maternity leave would have commenced – Global compensation for humiliation and distress appropriate – PARENTAL LEAVE – Applicant claimed compensation for loss of parental leave payment – Authority found parental leave payment not benefit that can be compensated under s123(1)(c)(ii) Employment Relations Act 2000 – COSTS – Authority satisfied $2,000 contribution to costs sought by applicant reasonable - $2,000 costs awarded – General Manager |
| Result | Applications granted (dismissal and disadvantage) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (23 weeks)($20,788.66) ; One month’s wages in lieu of notice ($3,916.66) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($9,000) ; Application dismissed (parental leave) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($2,000) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Huntley v Maataa Waka Ki te Tau Ihu Trust, unreported, H Doyle, 22 Sept 2008, CA 74B/08 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 403_08.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |