Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No CA 37/10
Hearing date 19 Feb 2010
Determination date 22 February 2010
Member P Cheyne
Representation G Rangiwananga (in person) ; no appearance
Location Christchurch
Parties Rangiwananga v Cado Holdings Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – No appearance for respondent – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by written warning from respondent’s director (“D”) – Applicant’s evidence accepted – D provided applicant written warning without prior discussion or opportunity to comment – Warning alleged rude, disrespectful, and belligerent behaviour by applicant – No evidence to support allegations provided to applicant or Authority – D called applicant to meeting to discuss warning letter – Applicant sought to defer meeting so could get advice or representation – D refused to defer meeting – Authority found allegations should have been raised with applicant when occurred rather than being documented for later use – Found D’s actions not those of fair and reasonable employer – Found security of employment undermined and made work environment much less satisfactory – Found applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Working environment stressful and difficult for applicant after warning – D raised customer complaint with applicant in way that upset applicant – Applicant decided too upset to continue working and told D stressed and wanted to go home – D told applicant would be abandoning employment – D swore and yelled as applicant left workplace – Applicant provided respondent medical certificate stating unfit for work – Authority found no attempt by respondent to justify dismissal – Found applicant did not abandon employment – Found applicant visibly distressed when left workplace – Found fair and reasonable employer would not have dismissed applicant – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Found no contributory conduct – Found applicant continued to work for month in stressful situation caused by circumstances of warning – Found $3,000 compensation for unjustified disadvantage appropriate – Found evidence of significant distress caused by dismissal – Found $12,500 compensation for unjustified dismissal appropriate – Authority ordered respondent to pay applicant $7,020 reimbursement of lost wages
Result Applications granted (Disadvantage) (Dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($7,020) ; Compensation for humiliation etc (Disadvantage) ($3,000) ; (Dismissal) ($12,500) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Number of Pages 5
PDF File Link: ca 37_10.pdf [pdf 22 KB]