| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 94/10 |
| Hearing date | 21 Jan 2010 |
| Determination date | 20 April 2010 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | S Fairclough ; G Herbert |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Heaney v Herbert t/a Equestrian Hotel and Anor |
| Other Parties | Country Hospitality Management (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Correct identity of applicant’s employer – Applicant claimed first respondent employer at all times – First respondent claimed applicant employed by second respondent – Applicant received wages from second respondent –Employer not identified on Inland Revenue records – Authority found first respondent had no personal involvement in applicant’s employment – Found first respondent did not hold themselves out to be applicant’s employer – Found while person who offered applicant employment did not disclose employment on behalf of second respondent, that person was hotel manager not first respondent – Second respondent applicant’s employer – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Second respondent experienced financial difficulties – Meeting held with applicant – Second respondent advised applicant position made redundant as position a duplication of tasks – Two weeks dismissal notice given – Personal grievance raised – Authority found should have given four weeks dismissal notice as two weeks unreasonable – Found proposed restructure genuine – Found dismissal decision canvassed to first respondent before meeting applicant - Found inadequate redundancy notice given and failed to consult applicant – Found dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Respondent to pay applicant two weeks pay in lieu of reasonable notice - $6,000 compensation appropriate – PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for second respondent’s failure to provide written employment agreement – Authority declined penalty award due to insufficient evidence when applicant became aware had cause of action – Penalty declined – Cleaner |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application dismissed (Penalty) ; Two weeks pay in lieu (Quantum to be determined) ; Compensation for humiliation ($6,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s63A |
| Cases Cited | Colosimo v Parker (2007) 8 NZELC 98,622;Mehta v Elliott (Labour Inspector) [2003] 1 ERNZ 451;Service Workers Union of Aotearoa and NZ Electrical etc IUOW v Chan [1991] 3 ERNZ 15 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 94_10.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |