| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 76/10 |
| Hearing date | 24 Mar 2010 |
| Determination date | 26 April 2010 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | R Tootill (Applicant in person) ; P Drummond |
| Location | Palmerston North |
| Parties | Tootill v Almadale Produce Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant claimed verbally agreed to employment for six months - Respondent denied offering six month’s employment - Applicant signed employment agreement (“EA”) that purported to be fixed term - Respondent’s director (“X”) decided first EA not clear enough about whether wage rate included holiday pay and presented applicant with another EA - X told applicant continuation of employment had to be on terms of rate of pay inclusive of holiday pay - Applicant did not agree to accept condition - Applicant advised employment would cease on specified date - Applicant claimed dismissal related to wage dispute - Respondent relied on purported fixed term to end employment - Found documentary evidence supported X’s view that no agreement for six month employment - Found neither EA made provision for six month term and applicant acknowledged that - Applicant had opportunity to get independent advice about EAs and did not propose any changes - Found fixed term did not meet requirements of s66 Employment Relations Act 2000 - Found respondent unable to rely on fixed term to end employment - Found respondent’s actions in unilaterally deciding to dismiss applicant with no consultation unfair and not actions of fair and reasonable employer - Found real reason for dismissal was applicant’s refusal to accept wage rate - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - No contributory conduct - Applicant not entitled to six months pay as no agreement to six month’s employment - Applicant claimed five weeks lost wages but no evidence of mitigation of loss provided - Authority not satisfied applicant would have had ongoing employment with respondent because of seasonal nature of employment - Found other employees laid off two weeks after applicant - Reimbursement of two week wages awarded - Found applicant’s feelings hurt because of manner of dismissal and failure to justify reasons - Found applicant’s claim of $2,000 compensation modest - $2,000 compensation appropriate - COSTS - As applicant successful party respondent not entitled to contribution to costs - Applicant self represented therefore not entitled to costs for his preparation and attendance, except for filing fee - Vegetable harvester |
| Result | Applications granted ; Arrears of wages ($276.55) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($1,104) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s66;ERA s66(1)(a);ERA s66(1)(b);ERA s66(1)(c);ERA s66(4);ERA s103A;ERA s128;ERA s130(1);ERA s131;ERA s221(b);ERA Second Schedule cl15;Holidays Act 2003 s81 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 76_10.pdf [pdf 45 KB] |