| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 36/10 |
| Hearing date | 25 Jan 2010 |
| Determination date | 29 January 2010 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | P Blair ; D Beck |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Frederick v Pascoe |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - No appearance for respondent - Applicant’s employment agreement required telephone numbers to be taken with client bookings and that applicant not smoke or smell of smoke whilst at work - Applicant denied receiving two written warnings for failing to record telephone numbers with bookings, smelling of smoke and concerns about applicant’s contact with her aunt who ran a business near by - Applicant accepted smoked, but claimed smoked away from premises and that was acceptable to respondent - Applicant continued to fail to take telephone numbers - Respondent and respondent’s husband asked to speak to applicant about private matter - Applicant informed verbally and in writing that dismissed for repeated failure to follow reasonable instruction - Authority found dismissal procedurally unjustified - Found applicant given no opportunity to explain or informed dismissal a possibility - Authority found while may have been failure to record telephone numbers not to extent that justified dismissal - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Authority not satisfied with applicant’s account of smoking issues and failure to record telephone numbers - Found 10 percent contributory conduct - Authority rejected applicant’s claim for three months lost wages - Authority not satisfied loss of remuneration for entire three month period attributable to personal grievance - Found applicant on sickness benefit for part of period - Applicant entitled to reimbursement of lost wages until went on sickness benefit - Taking contribution into account $3,580 awarded - Authority found applicant’s claim for $7,500 compensation reasonable in all circumstances - Taking contribution into account respondent to pay applicant $6,750 compensation - COSTS - Less than half a day investigation meeting - Applicant accepted daily tariff approach appropriate - As successful party applicant entitled to contribution to costs - Respondent to pay applicant $750 contribution to costs - Nail and Beauty Technician |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($3,978 reduced to $3,580.20) ; Compensation of humiliation etc ($7,500 reduced to $6,759) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($750) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl12 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 36_10.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |