| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 44/10 |
| Hearing date | 15 Dec 2009 |
| Determination date | 04 March 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | P Cranney ; A Shaw, P McBride |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Hannah v VBase Ltd and Anor |
| Other Parties | Spotless Services (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – First respondent told applicant restructuring by contracting applicant’s services to second respondent – Applicant transferred employment to second respondent as cleaner at town hall – Applicant acting in capacity as union delegate arranged union meeting at hall – Union organiser gained to access to hall with applicant’s assistance – Applicant given verbal warning by second respondent – Next day first respondent told second respondent no longer allowing applicant on site due to involvement in organising union meeting – Second respondent removed applicant from site and found applicant alternative work at lesser rate of pay – First respondent denied responsibility for employment claims as not applicant’s employer – First respondent argued within contractual rights to direct second respondent not to allow applicant to return to site – Second respondent argued acted at all times as fair and reasonable employer – Authority satisfied applicant did not know had to seek permission before organising union meeting – Found responsibility for applicant knowing obligations fell on second respondent – However, found second respondent did everything it reasonably could to treat applicant fairly and reasonably – Authority found town hall not public space once off hire for night – Found union materially contributed to applicant’s issues by failing to respond appropriately to first respondent’s reasonable request for notification – Found union meeting breached s21 ERA – Found not fair applicant should bear brunt of unions failure – Found first and second respondents did not act fairly and properly in removing applicant from site - Found second respondent did not act as fair and reasonable employer in reducing applicant’s rate of pay without consent – Found applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged – Found no unjustified dismissal as employment relationship continued – Remedies – Authority declined to award compensation as found applicant contributed to grievance by not using best endeavours to persuade union of its failures – Reinstatement ordered – Second respondent ordered to pay applicant difference between current rate of pay and rate previously on from date of reduction – Cleaner |
| Result | Application granted (Disadvantage) ; Application dismissed (Dismissal) ; Reinstatement ordered ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA Schedule 1A;Contracts Privity Act 1982 s11;Contracts Privity Act 1982 s124(2);Contracts Privity Act 1982 s8;ERA s20;ERA s210;ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Charles v Waitakere City Council and Anor unreported, R Arthur, 19 Nov 2007, AA 362/07;G & H Trade Training v Crewther [2002] 1 ERNZ 513 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 44_10.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |