| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 142/10 |
| Hearing date | 27 Oct 2009 - 5 Nov 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 26 March 2010 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | E Tanner ; M Rush |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Moreland v Johnstone & Anor t/a Johnstone Farming Partnership |
| Other Parties | Johnstone |
| Summary | GOOD FAITH - Applicant claimed breach of s4 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) as respondent failed to provide ACC information for applicant’s work injury – Authority found no evidence respondent deliberately misled or deceived ACC with regard to applicant’s earnings – Applicant claimed respondents failed to provide time off for recovery – Found applicant had weekends off and adequate work cover – Applicant claimed s63A(2) ERA breached as respondent failed to provide applicant copy of employment agreement (“EA”) – Found EA received and opportunity to seek independent advice given – PEANLTY - Applicant sought penalty for breach of s65(2)(a)(vi) ERA as EA did not provide dispute resolution process – Found s65(2)(a)(vi) ERA breached but no penalty prescribed for breach – Applicant sought penalty for failure to provide wage and time records – Found records produced when requested - ARREARS OF WAGES – Applicant sought arrears of wages for not being paid enough for work done – Applicant claimed not paid minimum wage rate - Found applicant agreed to salary upon acceptance of EA – Found applicant worked flexible hours – Found applicant paid at more than minimum wage rate – Applicant claimed not paid salary increases as promised by respondents – Found increases paid – Applicant claimed did not receive day off in lieu for working public holiday – Found applicant chose to take payment instead of day off in lieu – Order declined - RECOVERY OF MONIES – Applicant sought recovery of $1,138 for unlawful wage deduction – Parties verbally agreed respondent would purchase applicant new bike and applicant agreed for costs to be deducted from wages – Authority found no express agreement for deductions made therefore unlawful – Found penalty not warranted as respondent honestly believed deductions could be made – Respondents ordered to reimburse applicant $1,138 – ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY – Applicant sought arrears of holiday pay – Found applicant received full entitlement to holiday pay and overpaid – Ordered declined - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – Applicant claimed entitled to pursue grievance as EA did not provide process for resolving employment relationship problems – Found jurisdiction under s115(c) ERA to hear claim - Applicant claimed respondents’ breach of statutory duty so severe had no option but to resign – Claimed breach of good faith – Claimed long work hours caused difficulties between applicant and son – Authority found no breach of good faith – Found applicant knew long work hours part of farm – Found applicant’s work hours flexible – Found applicant received all contractual entitlements to time off – Found respondents met minimum wage rate – Found respondents made unlawful deductions however breach not reason for resignation – Found applicant not aware of breach until after employment relationship ended – No constructive dismissal – Farm Assistant |
| Result | Application granted (Recovery of monies) ; Applications dismissed (Unjustified dismissal)(Good faith)(Arrears of wages)(Arrears of holiday pay) ; Recovery of monies ($1,138.53)(Unlawful deduction of wages) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s63A(2);ERA s65;ERA s65(20(a)(vi);ERA s66;ERA s66(4);ERA s68;ERA s69;ERA s115(c);Wages Protection Act 1983 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW Inc [1994] 1 ERNZ 168;Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in liq) [1998] AC 20 ; [1997] 2 All ER 1 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 142_10.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |