| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 182/10 |
| Hearing date | 21 May 2010 |
| Determination date | 16 September 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | J Sanders ; S Grey |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Cook v Bradiana Enterprises Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer – Authority found not unreasonable to conclude notice to director of respondent constituted defacto communication with respondent – Applicant claimed doctrine of the undisclosed principle applied – Authority found respondent’s director not party in proceeding – Found matter could properly proceed with company clearly identified as respondent – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant kicked co-worker at workplace – Respondent argued applicant taken off duty roster as had to investigate allegations – Applicant’s mother told respondent applicant finished with work – Subsequently before respondent had opportunity to complete investigation received letter from applicant’s advocate alleging applicant unjustifiably dismissed – Authority satisfied no dismissal – Applicant claimed cancellation of shift and subsequent cancellation of later shifts constituted improper suspension effectively bringing employment relationship to end – Found satisfied what applicant’s mother said to respondent sufficient to convince respondent applicant had ended employment relationship – Respondent took advocate’s letter as further confirmation employment relationship at an end – Found no further attempt by respondent to complete investigation due to director’s illness – Authority concluded employment relationship came to end not via agency of employer but as consequence of action of applicant through mother – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed as no employment agreement then no provision allowing for suspension – Authority found law provided for suspension in certain circumstances even though no provision in employment agreement – Co-workers evidence preferred – Found suspension not unjustified – ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY – Found applicant permanent employee and not casual – Found applicant entitled to recover unpaid sick leave and holiday leave – Shop assistant |
| Result | Applications dismissed (Dismissal)(Disadvantage) ; Arrears of wages and holiday pay (Quantum to be determined) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Holidays Act 2003 s28;Holidays Act 2003 s28(4);Holidays Act 2003 s63 |
| Cases Cited | Jinkinson v Oceania Gold (NZ) Ltd [2009] ERNZ 225 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |