| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 56/10 |
| Hearing date | 24 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 10 February 2010 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | M Matthew ; T Allesbrook |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Mikolajcyk v Plus Pac Packaging Solutions Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – DISCRIMINATION – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed, subject to discrimination on basis of family status, and breach of good faith – Applicant and husband (“H”) employed by respondent – H resigned – Managing director (“A”) sought H’s reasons for resignation – H disclosed found work with new company – New company did not compete with respondent – Respondent alleged H’s resignation breach of contract – Applicant told dismissed for commercially competitive reasons as consequence of H’s breach of contract – Authority found applicant and H not subject to contractual restraint of trade provision – Respondent argued believed H going to work for competitor and risk applicant would pass on commercially sensitive information – Authority rejected respondent’s argument that applicant and H obliged to disclose H’s new employer – Authority found no reliable basis for belief H going to work for competitor – Found no basis for respondent’s belief risk applicant and H would collude to uplift commercially sensitive information – Found no substance to respondent’s concerns – Found A unable to provide any reasons why mistrusted applicant except did not trust H and believed applicant under H’s influence – Found no evidence of any previous misconduct by applicant – Found applicant discriminated against on basis of family status – Dismissal substantively and procedurally unjustified – Remedies – No contributory conduct – Applicant claimed as new immigrant had difficulty finding new job when respondent had been only employer – Claimed compounded by respondent not providing reference – Authority found applicant entitled to $20,088 reimbursement of lost wages – Authority accepted applicant’s evidence of deep distress suffered – Evidence not disputed by manager – Found $15,000 compensation appropriate – Factory process worker |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($20,088.00) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($15,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Human Rights Act 1993 s32 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 56_10.pdf [pdf 24 KB] |