Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No CA 91/10
Hearing date 12 Mar 2010 - 18 Mar 2010 (2 days)
Determination date 16 April 2010
Member H Doyle
Representation J Goldstein ; J Brooks
Location Christchurch
Parties Dyer v Beauty Management Riccarton Ltd
Summary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Parties consented to respondent being identified as applicant’s employer – Respondent provided no evidence or submissions to answer personal grievance – Authority proceeded on basis of applicant’s evidence – Authority reserved arrears of holiday pay application - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant advised without notice position terminated as respondent could not afford to employ applicant – No further reasons given – Authority found respondent dismissed applicant without notice – Found no basis for conclusion respondent could not afford to employ applicant – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Reimbursement of two weeks lost wages – $5000 compensation appropriate – PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for failure to identify employer on employment agreement (“EA”) – Sought penalty for failure to provide wage and time records – Authority found no penalty provided for failure to identify employer on EA – Found $1,000 penalty warranted for failure to provide wage and time records – Penalty granted – Beautician
Result Applications granted (Unjustified dismissal)(Penalty – Failure to provide time and wage records) ; Application dismissed (Penalty – Failure to identify employer); Reimbursement of lost wages ($1,200) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Penalty ($500)(Payable to Crown) ($500)(Payable to applicant) ; Arrears of holiday pay reserved ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s65;ERA s103A;ERA s130;ERA s130(4);Privacy Act 1983
Number of Pages 10
PDF File Link: ca 91_10.pdf [pdf 42 KB]