Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 62/09
Hearing date 18 Feb 2009
Determination date 25 February 2009
Member R A Monaghan
Representation A Nimick (Applicant in person) ; I Carter
Location Auckland
Parties Nimick v Xegen Internet Technologies Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed following altercation with respondent regarding arrears of holiday pay, expenses and salary – Applicant entered into new employment agreement (“EA”) beginning of second year of employment – EA provided salary increase and entitlement to annual leave consistent with Holidays Act 2003 (“HA 2003”) – S16 HA 2003 provided employee entitled to four weeks paid annual holidays at end of 12 months continuous employment – EA provided annual leave to be taken at time agreed to by parties - Applicant received paid annual leave in advance of entitlement but mistakenly believed entitled to annual leave not taken during first year of employment – Remainder of applicant’s entitlement was only available for use when employment ended or taken in terms of the EA - Applicant requested respondent pay outstanding salary, holiday pay and stated legal action be taken if payments not made – Matters escalated – Applicant dismissed – Respondent retracted dismissal two days later and requested meeting to resolve employment relationship problems – Applicant claimed parties needed to agree to new EA with payment of full salary and outstanding holiday pay – Applicant received salary and arrears of expenses but not holiday pay – Authority found dismissal substantively and procedurally unjustified - REMEDIES – Found contributory conduct due to applicant’s unreasonable demand for holiday pay– No award of lost wages made – Found respondent’s retraction of dismissal was an offer of reinstatement, however, applicant declined offer because of mistaken belief unused leave was owed – Found $1,000 compensation appropriate after contribution – ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Order of $9,254 holiday pay made due to completion of 12 months continuous employment at time of dismissal – COSTS – Applicant represented self – Applicant entitled to filing fee – Technical and Marketing Manager
Result Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1000 after contribution) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($9,254.82) ; Disbursement in favour of applicant ($70.00)(Filing fee)
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes Holidays Act 2003 s16
Cases Cited Finau v Carter Holt Building Supplies [1993] 2 ERNZ 971
Number of Pages 7
PDF File Link: aa 62_09.pdf [pdf 27 KB]