| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 11/09 |
| Hearing date | 7 Aug 2008 |
| Determination date | 19 January 2009 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | M Ryan ; B Quarrie |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Akib v Chief Executive Northtec |
| Summary | DISCRIMINATION – Applicant claimed discrimination on basis of ethnicity – Authority found no evidence of discrimination - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed differences in salary between fixed term and permanent employment positions unreasonable - Authority found respondent’s discretion to determine salary level – Applicant claimed probationary period caused disadvantage – Found probationary period lawful and no opportunity to reduce probation period due to applicant’s long sick leave – Applicant claimed instructions to work in different department than required under employment agreement (“EA”) breached EA – Found EA breached – Found applicant not informed duties included work in different department when employment offer made – Disadvantage unjustified - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Respondent’s review concluded overstaffing of teaching department – Applicant selected for redundancy - Applicant’s duties allocated to other staff while applicant on long sick leave – Applicant informed of redundancy and invited to make submissions – Information given to union and requisite notice period provided in EA not given - Authority found dismissal procedurally unjustified – Found selection of applicant reasonable due to long absence from work – Found requisite notice period not given – Dismissal unjustified - RECOVERY OF MONIES – Recovery of overpayment – Respondent mistakenly paid applicant before position commenced – Respondent made deductions from applicant’s final pay – Authority found deduction unlawful under s4 Wages Protection Act 1983 (“WPA”) – Found circumstances did not fall within “recovery period” under s6 WPA – Found despite applicant’s oral consent, recovery of monies unlawful however no penalty sought for breach of WPA – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – $3,000 compensation appropriate – PENALTY – Penalty for breach of good faith declined - Tutor |
| Result | Applications granted (Unjustified disadvantage – Breach of contract)(Unjustified dismissal)(Recover of monies) ; Applications dismissed (Penalty)(Unjustified disadvantage – Unreasonable salary)(Unjustified disadvantage – Unreasonable probationary period)(Discrimination) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s63(2);Judicature Act 1908;Wages Protection Act 1983 s4;Wages Protection Act 1983 s6(1);Wages Protection Act 1983 s6(3) |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 11_09.pdf [pdf 48 KB] |