| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 174/10 |
| Hearing date | 26 Aug 2010 |
| Determination date | 02 September 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | No appearance ; T Ross |
| Location | Blenheim |
| Parties | Ashton and Anor v Ross Viticulture Ltd |
| Other Parties | Steventon |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – ARREARS OF WAGES – No appearance for applicants – Applicants claimed unjustifiably dismissed and not paid minimum wages during employment – Applicants were casual employees called in for work as and when required – Work dependent on extent of contracts held and operating for respondent – Authority preferred respondent’s evidence that first day of applicant’s employment unpaid because was orientation day – Respondent’s evidence also preferred regarding subsequent days – Second applicant told by respondent that speed and accuracy of work unacceptable and would not be offered further work – Respondent argued if had not acted vine grower could have complained impacting on whole contract potentially putting 30 staff out of work – Furthermore could not allow situation to develop where continuing employee through slowness of work not achieving minimum wage equivalent – Authority found no dismissal, simply notification further work not being offered because necessary skills not demonstrated – Found respondent had obligation to protect applicants from engaging in work for which they were not suited – Found if respondent allowed applicants to enter type of work where could not make viable living then would not assist either party – Pruners |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 174_10.pdf [pdf 20 KB] |