| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 110/09 |
| Hearing date | 26 Feb 2009 |
| Determination date | 07 April 2009 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | T Sharma (in person) ; G Saraswat |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Sharma v Golden Indian Enterprises Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant on temporary work permit - Applicant claimed month into employment told restaurant would be closed for renovations for a month and would be paid for 15 days of that time - Claimed never received promised payment and attempts to contact respondent unsuccessful - Few weeks later applicant rang restaurant and informed by staff member restaurant never closed - Respondent denied ever said restaurant would close and that applicant simply disappeared - Respondent claimed only treated employment as at end when applicant absent without leave for twelve days - Discrepancies in accounts found - Respondent argued concluded as applicant left and did not return must have been stealing - Respondent notified Immigration Service applicant left employment - Applicant’s work permit cancelled and given notice to leave country - Applicant claimed would not have risked jeopardising work permit by disappearing in way respondent claimed - Authority found had two very different versions of events with little independent evidence to resolve differences - Overall respondent’s evidence preferred - Found no more likely respondent ended employment relationship than applicant did - Insufficient evidence to persuade Authority respondent dismissed applicant - Unjustified dismissal claim dismissed - ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Written employment agreement set annual salary and hours of work - Neither party clear as to actual hours worked - Authority concluded number of hours probably close to those specified in agreement - Found applicant not paid full weekly amount entitled to - Arrears of wages owing - Holiday pay owing - COUNTERCLAIM - Recovery of monies - Applicant lived in house owned by another company in which respondent had interest and ate at respondent’s restaurant - Respondent claimed applicant never paid for accommodation or food - Claim for arrears of rent dismissed for lack of evidence of any tenancy agreement - Authority accepted applicant’s assertion common in hospitality industry for staff to get at least one meal provided - Claim for payment for food dismissed - Restaurant manager |
| Result | Application dismissed (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application granted (Arrears of wages) ; Arrears of wages ($634.25) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($290.77) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 110_09.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |