| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 271/10 |
| Hearing date | 1 Jun 2010 |
| Determination date | 09 June 2010 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | A Kumar (in person) ; J Latimer |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Jumar v Migrants Support Services Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant sought reinstatement for unjustified dismissal - Claimed written warning caused unjustified disadvantage – Respondent argued reinstatement not appropriate as no trust and confidence between parties – Conflict of evidence whether respondent publicly humiliated applicant after applicant sought permission to leave workplace – Respondent issued written warning for applicant’s alleged misconduct at alleged incident – Warning provided applicant’s behaviour aggressive and recommended anger management course – Applicant denied allegations responding warning “highly opinionated” – Applicant alleged to Executive Committee respondent responsible for employment relationship problems – Respondent sought to arrange meeting with applicant to amicably resolve employment relationship problem – Applicant declined meeting advising respondent wanted to resign from employment – Following day, applicant advised wanted to continue employment until found alternative employment – Respondent sought Committee approval on matter – Applicant subsequently alleged to Committee respondent forced applicant to resign – Respondent requested applicant to attend disciplinary meeting to discuss whether tenable for applicant to continue employment – Respondent concluded after meeting dismissal appropriate as no trust and confidence between parties – Personal grievance raised – Respondent’s evidence preferred – Authority found mutual lack of trust and confidence between parties therefore employment relationship could not continue - Found dismissal justified – Found written warning constituted unjustified disadvantage as no discussion held prior to warning issued – REMEDIES – Reinstatement declined - No contributory conduct – Found no contractual basis for claim respondent owed applicant six days pay in lieu - $2,000 compensation appropriate – COSTS – No order for costs as applicant self represented – Programme Project Coordinator |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Application dismissed (Unjustified dismissal) ; Reinstatement declined ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2000) ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s122 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 271_10.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |