| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 164/09 |
| Hearing date | 22 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 27 October 2009 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | L Hansen ; K Reipen |
| Location | New Plymouth |
| Parties | Walsh v Mountain House Adventures Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant claimed dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair - Respondent claimed employment terminated at end of probation period in accordance with employment agreement (“EA”) - Applicant hired by head chef (“C”) while respondent’s owner (“R”) overseas - When R returned, asked C why applicant hired and advised did not like applicant - C indicated applicant good worker - C told R applicant on probationary period - R believed entitled to cancel EA during probationary period and asked C to cancel EA - Applicant handed dismissal letter by junior staff member - R claimed applicant dismissed as did not like her, did not like her standard of work and had been told by another worker applicant asked her to falsify timesheet - Applicant claimed worker making trouble as unsuccessful in applying for applicant’s job - Authority found allegation not proven - Found at time of dismissal law related to unjustified dismissal not affected by probationary period - Found respondent not entitled to dismiss applicant at end of probationary period simply because EA contained probationary period - Found respondent should have provided specific notice or concerns and allegation, given applicant opportunity for explanation and considered explanation - Found disciplinary process for poor performance and misconduct in EA not followed - Found no good cause to terminate applicant’s employment - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - No contributory conduct - Applicant found new job five weeks later but at reduced hourly rate - Applicant entitled to three months lost remuneration comprised of $5,040 lost wages for five weeks unemployed and $2,320 for difference between hourly rates - Authority found dismissal had significant impact on applicant - Found dismissal unexpected, effected applicant’s confidence and negatively impacted on financial security - Even taking into account short length of employment $6,000 compensation appropriate - Bar/Restaurant manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($7,580) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | NZ (with exceptions) Food processing etc IUOW v Unilever [1990] 1 NZILR 35;Slater v Smith [1994] 1 ERNZ 869 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 164_09.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |