Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No CA 16/10
Hearing date 25 Jan 2010
Determination date 28 January 2010
Member J Crichton
Representation D Small ; no appearance
Location Christchurch
Parties Aitken v Amatrac Enterprises Ltd t/a Nandos Beckenham
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – No appearance for respondent – Applicant claimed redundancy not genuine therefore dismissal unjustified – Applicant suffered injury before required to start shift work – Applicant advised respondent of injury - Applicant summoned to meeting and summarily dismissal for redundancy without notice – Respondent continued recruiting after applicant dismissed – Authority found respondent used redundancy to dismiss applicant as applicant’s injury became an inconvenience for respondent – Found even if redundancy genuine, dismissal unjustified for total absence of procedure – Dismissal unjustified - REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - $2,000 compensation for humiliation appropriate – Reimbursement of lost wages of $2,707 - ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY – Applicant sought arrears of holiday pay – Authority ordered respondent to pay applicant $720 holiday pay – RECOVERY OF MONIES – Applicant sought recovery of $150 – Applicant claimed no written agreement respondent could retain monies – Found applicant agreed owed respondent money therefore no unlawful deduction of monies – Order declined – COSTS – Costs to lie where they fall - Kitchen Hand
Result Applications granted (Unjustified dismissal)(Arrears of holiday pay) ; Applicant dismissed (Recovery of monies) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($720) ; Reimbursement for lost wages ($2,707.16) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) ; Costs to lie where they fall ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee)
Main Category Personal Grievance
Number of Pages 4
PDF File Link: ca 16_10.pdf [pdf 18 KB]