| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 163/09 |
| Hearing date | 4 Dec 2008 |
| Determination date | 22 May 2009 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | A Taylor ; L Brut |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hutton & Ors v Coromandel Dairy Trust Ltd |
| Other Parties | Graham, Wright, Cosbrooke |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Abandonment – Applicants claimed unjustifiably dismissed without warning – Respondent claimed abandonment of employment – First and second applicants domestic partners – Third and fourth applicants domestic partners - First and fourth applicant arrived one hour late for work – Respondent Manager (“T”) told all applicants “you’re finished” – Applicants claimed dismissed – Three days later, T sent letter to applicants advising late arrival inconvenienced business, written warning issued to first and fourth applicant and dismissal for abandonment if not return to workplace – First, second and third applicant did not return – Letter sent to Respondent Director (“B”) raising employment relationship concerns and invited B to mediation – Fourth applicant returned for one day as good faith gesture to resolve matters – Fourth applicant subsequently advised T not returning to workplace until written employment agreement (“EA”) provided and meeting with B held – T agreed and advised written warnings lifted – Following day, T advised all applicants not dismissed, written warnings stood and failure to return would be deemed abandonment – B advised all applicants to return – Applicants did not return and declined offers of written EA – Applicants dismissed – Respondent claimed T had no authority to dismiss applicants – Authority found T had ostensible authority to dismiss applicants - Found dismissals procedurally and substantively unjustified - Found first and fourth applicant not given opportunity for explanation – Found lateness of one hour not basis for instant dismissals – Found no evidence lateness hampered farm production - Found no agreement reached between first, second and third applicant to re-establish employment relations after dismissal – Found fourth applicant reaffirmed employment relations on limited terms by returning to work – Found no abandonment by fourth applicant - Found fourth applicant continued to resolve employment relations – Found fourth applicant subsequently dismissed - Dismissals unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct found for all applicants – Found $3,000 compensation for first applicant and $2,000 for second applicant – Found $4,000 compensation for third and fourth applicant – Authority noted the effect of dismissal on third and fourth applicants’ family – Reimbursement of two weeks lost wages for first and second applicant – Reimbursement of 1 month lost wages for third and fourth applicant – ARREARS OF WAGES - ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY – Authority ordered respondent to pay first and second applicant arrears of holiday pay of $900 – Respondent ordered to pay third and fourth applicant arrears of holiday pay of $2,775 – Respondent ordered to pay fourth applicant arrears of wages of $150 – Interest payable on all sums owed – PENALTY – Applicants sought penalty for failure to comply with information requests – Authority declined penalty because failure to provide material did not prejudice applicants ability to recover arrears – Farm Workers |
| Result | Applications granted (Unjustified dismissal) (Arrears of holiday pay) (Arrears of Wages – Fourth applicant) ; Application dismissed (Penalty) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($750)(First and second applicant) ($1,500)(Third and fourth applicant) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000)(First applicant) ($2,000)(Second applicant) ($4,000)(Third and fourth applicant) ; Arrears of wages ($150)(Fourth applicant) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($900)(First and second applicant) ($2,775)(Third and fourth applicant) ; Interest (5%) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s124;ERA Second Schedule cl11 |
| Cases Cited | E N Ramsbottom Ltd v Chambers [2000] 2 ERNZ 97 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 163_09.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |