| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 87/10 |
| Hearing date | 24 Mar 2010 |
| Determination date | 05 May 2010 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | G Ogilvie ; J Broad |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Lingenfelter v Trinity Broadcasting Network South Pacific Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustified dismissal – Respondent claimed applicant dismissed for insubordination, untruthfulness, conspiracy, refusal to submit to correction and inability to carry out duties – Authority noted key people involved in applicant’s dismissal did not give evidence in person at investigation meeting – Authority preferred applicant’s evidence because fully questioned in person – Applicant also trustee of trust who paid respondent’s staff – Applicant claimed sidelined from respondent’s activities as minority on Board – Authority found respondent concerned about applicant’s actions as trustee – Respondent failed to raise performance concerns with applicant – Respondent raised issue about bringing young person into office but matter not taken any further and conduct consistent with other children being brought into workplace – Respondent raised concerns about applicant’s regular absences and long periods of time spent sitting at computer doing no work – Respondent claimed applicant not working hours paid for – New employment agreement (“EA”) discussed between parties which included disentitlement to redundancy compensation – Applicant informed being removed as trustee – Found applicant did not receive warning and no indication job at serious risk – Found applicant made aware of requirement to provide timesheets but failed to do so – Applicant claimed had not signed new EA therefore not obliged to fill in timesheets – Respondent made clear directive to complete timesheets not conditional on new EA – Applicant subsequently suspended and dismissed – Found actions as trustee important in losing employment – Found position as trustee should not jeopardise employment – Found applicant genuinely but wrongly believed did not have to fill in timesheet – Found applicant directed to fill in timesheet but no opportunity given to follow directive – Found issues raised with applicant not relied on for dismissal – Found respondent could not rely on applicant reneging on agreement to vary EA as grounds for dismissal – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Found applicant not responsible for respondent’s procedural failures – $10,757 reimbursement of lost wages appropriate – Found applicant suffered greatly following dismissal, had difficulties with communications with Church members and shifted to new town as result – $10,000 compensation appropriate – Assistant administration officer, auditor and prayer co-ordinator |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($10,757.57) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v V unreported, Colgan CJ, Couch J, Shaw J, Travis J, 3 June 2009, AC 15/09;Honda NZ Ltd v NZ (with exceptions) Shipwrights etc Union [1990] 3 NZILR 23;McAdam v Port Nelson Ltd (No.2) [1993] ERNZ 300;NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing IUW v Unilever New Zealand Ltd [1990] NZILR 35;Sky Network Television Ltd v Duncan [1998] 3 ERNZ 917;Tupu v Romano’s Pizzas (Wellington) Ltd [1995] 2 ERNZ 266 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 87_10.pdf [pdf 59 KB] |