| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 61/09 |
| Hearing date | 20 Feb 2009 |
| Determination date | 08 May 2009 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | A Sharma ; D Patten |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Taylor v Jones |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Applicant offered and accepted apprenticeship with respondent - Applicant claimed dismissed before apprenticeship began - Authority found applicant person intending to work for purposes of Employment Relations Act 2000 - Applicant claimed dismissed during phone conversation with respondent - Respondent claimed no grievance raised within 90 days and did not consent to raising grievance out of time - Applicant claimed wrote letter to respondent raising grievance within 90 day period - Respondent claimed never received letter - Authority found by writing and posting letter applicant took reasonable steps to communicate dissatisfaction with dismissal to respondent - Found grievance raised within time - Authority found even if grievance not raised within time just to grant leave to raise grievance out of time - Applicant had instructed employment advocate who failed to raise grievance within time - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Respondent claimed only told applicant not required for work experience over Christmas and did not terminate apprenticeship - Respondent’s evidence rejected - Found if apprenticeship not terminated respondent would have contacted applicant to finalise arrangements - Respondent provided no explanation for why did not contact applicant - Found applicant dismissed - Found dismissal without justification - Found respondent believed applicant had spread negative rumours about her at a Polytechnic - Found respondent did not raise matter with applicant to comment on and no evidence to support applicant spreading rumours - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - No contributory conduct - Applicant found full time position before apprenticeship would have started - No award of reimbursement of lost wages - Applicant’s evidence about effects of dismissal accepted - Applicant’s mother’s evidence applicant took long time to recover from dismissal and had low self esteem accepted - $5,000 compensation appropriate - Apprentice Hairdresser |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s114(1);ERA s114(2) |
| Cases Cited | Clark v Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology unreported, Couch J, 19 Aug 2008, CC 12/08;Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] 1 ERNZ 517;Ruebe-Donaldson v Sky Network Television Ltd [2004] 2 ERNZ 83;Winstone Wallboards Ltd v Samate [1993] 1 ERNZ 503 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 61_09.pdf [pdf 30 KB] |