| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 193/09 |
| Hearing date | 3 Nov 2009 |
| Determination date | 09 November 2009 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | S McKenzie ; no appearance |
| Location | Invercargill |
| Parties | Antonisse v White Waters Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - No appearance for respondent - Employment relationship good until respondent’s director (“H”) went overseas and H’s wife (“S”) remained on farm - S had no managerial, financial, or governance interest in respondent - Applicant claimed S took workers away from assigned tasks - Claimed relief milking work given to other employees instead of applicant’s wife (“W”) as agreed - Applicant claimed co-workers had substance abuse problems and frequently unable to assist with tasks - Applicant claimed when raised issue S became abusive, threw objects at him and threatened that son would physically hurt him - Applicant complained to H and issue resolved temporarily - Applicant told S was struggling with workload and abuse recommenced - Applicant claimed S said her son, who was recently released from prison, would beat up W’s mother as believed was responsible for an employee receiving warning - Applicant went home in face of threats - Next day H emailed applicant raising numerous personal criticisms and advised applicant to look for another job as being replaced - In later email H claimed applicant resigned - Applicant advised respondent going on two weeks sick leave - Respondent requested applicant have blood test as believed either had virus or on drugs - Applicant agreed to test when H agreed to pay - Test result negative - H then refused to pay for test - Authority found employment agreement did not end by mutual agreement - Found applicant dismissed - Found S main cause of deterioration of employment relationship - Found no substantive or procedural justification for dismissal - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - No contributory conduct - Applicant found alternative employment six weeks after dismissal but at reduced salary - Applicant entitled to six weeks reimbursement of lost wages and difference between salaries for further seven week period - Respondent to reimburse applicant costs of blood test - Authority found applicant suffered serious humiliation, abuse, and physical threats to safety - Found humiliation made worse by respondent’s unsubstantiated claims about applicant - Found applicant suffered financial difficulties - Despite relatively brief period of employment $8,500 compensation appropriate - ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant not paid holiday pay - Found holiday pay owing - COSTS - Less than half day investigation meeting - Applicant entitled to contribution to reasonably incurred costs - Authority found tariff based approach appropriate in circumstances - Respondent to pay $2,000 contribution to costs - Award would have been lower had respondent appeared at mediation - 2IC Farm Manager |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($5,879.54) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,500) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($2,400) ; Reimbursement for blood test ($80) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($2,000) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103 |
| Cases Cited | PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 193_09.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |