| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 413/10 |
| Hearing date | 13 Sep 2010 |
| Determination date | 14 September 2010 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | D Lal (in person) ; G Eddy |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Lal v Alloy Yachts International Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Respondent argued applicant’s dismissal justifiable or alternatively grievance not raised within 90 day period – Applicant arrested and charged with serious offences under Crimes Act 1961 – Alleged actions committed after work hours and off respondent’s premises – Applicant released on bail and able to continue attending work – Applicant conceded did not tell respondent about arrest or scheduled trial – Subsequently Court withdrew bail and applicant taken into custody – Respondent’s records showed messages received indicating applicant sick or injured and would be absent from work – Found applicant not sick or injured but detained in custody – Respondent wrote to applicant stating applicant absent from work without notification for 3 days and employment terminated on grounds of abandonment – Authority found applicant knew of dismissal and had 90 days to raise grievance – Subsequently jury unanimously found applicant not guilty and applicant released from custody – Applicant not reemployed by respondent – Applicant claimed job first ever in New Zealand and unaware of requirements to pursue claim until advised by immigration consultant – Authority noted understandable applicant and family saw considerable injustice in circumstances – Found arrest and charges against applicant had nothing to do with respondent – Found respondent not told about arrest for several months when applicant on bail and able to attend work – Found in various communications between parties grievance not raised within 90 days – Found applicant’s attempts to resume employment after release from custody not by itself a raising of grievance – Authority noted although not required to determine grievance on merits did seem arguable was or would later have been basis for justifiable dismissal – Noted abandonment clause express term of employment agreement – Found misfortune that applicant arrested and tried for serious offences before being acquitted nothing respondent had responsibility for – Found respondent not guarantor applicant able to work for time as permitted by work visa – Found did not have to decide substantive issue as grievance not raised in time – Welder |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s114;ERA s159(1);Crimes Act 1961 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 413_10.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |