| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 3/10 |
| Hearing date | 12 Aug 2009 - 28 Aug 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 08 January 2010 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | R Jogia ; N Carter |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Jogia v Sefton Construction Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed verbally attacked and unfairly blamed for issues with respondent’s clients – Respondent denied any unjustified actions - Applicant claimed assaulted at Christmas function – Authority made strong credibility finding against applicant – Authority did not accept applicant assaulted – Authority found applicant’s assertion that respondent issued unlawful instruction to inflate quote implausible – Applicant claimed abusive conduct by manager – Authority found manager had reason to be angry after applicant failed to make full payment to sub-contractor – Therefore, found manager’s reaction not breach of employment obligations – Authority rejected applicant’s second claim of unlawful instruction – Authority found applicant’s account of matter implausible – Found more likely applicant seeking to cover up own error in dishonest, underhand way – Authority rejected applicant’s remaining claims of abusive conduct by respondent – Applicant claimed respondent refused to pay wages – Authority found no breach of obligations as initial failure to pay quickly remedied – No unjustified disadvantage – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed resignation withdrawn – Authority found respondent did not accept withdrawal of resignation – No dismissal – ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY – Leave reserved regarding holiday pay claims – COSTS – Applicant successful party in preliminary matter – Authority found evidence indicated assistance received by applicant was relevant to substantive matter – Found applicant not entitled to contribution to costs – Respondent successful party in substantive matter – Respondent sought indemnity costs – Respondent argued dismissal grievance bound to fail and disadvantage allegations untrue, unsubstantiated, and unnecessary – Authority found little strong to say allegations about resignation bound to fail – However, disadvantage allegations serious, untrue, and should not have been made – Authority did not impose notional reduction for purposes of calculation of costs – Found applicant pursued grievance after being warned of seriousness of allegations – Found disadvantage allegations so lacking in merit, element of dishonesty existed – Authority applied small reduction to full costs award to recognise position regarding resignation – Applicant ordered to pay respondent $10,000 contribution to costs – Quantity surveyor/estimator |
| Result | Applications dismissed (Disadvantage & Dismissal) ; Costs in favour of employer ($10,000) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Holidays Act 2003 s6;Holidays Act 2003 s27;Holidays Act 2003 s28;Holidays Act 2003 s55 |
| Cases Cited | Jogia v Sefton Construction Limited unreported, R A Monaghan, 20 Mar 2009, AA 82/09;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808;Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ, 438 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 20 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 3_10.pdf [pdf 51 KB] |