| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 9 |
| Hearing date | 10 Aug 2010 |
| Determination date | 12 January 2011 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | A Singh ; S Hood |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Hurst v Eagle Equipment Ltd |
| Summary | RECOVERY OF MONIES – Applicant claimed not paid commission for sales entitled to be paid for – Authority noted commission claims contract based and hence no time bar issues – Found applicant entitled to rely on undertakings given by respondent as being binding on both parties – Found onus on applicant to prove had entitlement to monies alleged due – Authority examined each commission claim separately – Found largely due to insufficient proof most of applicant’s commission claims failed – Noted monies due to applicant largely those offered by respondent to settle matter – Found commission payments owing to applicant – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent on ground of redundancy – Claimed manner in which redundancy implemented breach of good faith – Claimed redundancy not genuine, never received outcome of consultation process or written notification of termination of employment – Authority found redundancy genuine – Found applicant undertook analysis of applicant’s sales figures and information provided to applicant – Found redundancy not predetermined – Found respondent consulted with applicant in compliance with employment agreement (“EA”), s4 Employment Relations Act 2000, and common law – Found alternative proposals to redundancy presented to applicant – Found redundancy not procedurally flawed – No unjustified dismissal – COUNTERCLAIM – Respondent argued applicant’s failure to claim commission payments when due constituted breach of EA and duty of good faith – Found no doubt applicant inexcusably lax in presenting some claims when instructed, however, actions did not constitute breach of EA, or good faith provisions, for which penalty available – Counterclaim dismissed – Country Territory Manager |
| Result | Application granted (Recovery of monies) ; Recovery of monies (Commission payments)(Quantum to be determined) ; Application dismissed (Redundancy) (Counterclaim) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s103A;ERA s114;ERA s133;ERA s134;ERA s162 |
| Cases Cited | Postal Workers Union v New Zealand Post (unreported) [2010] NZEPMC 136;GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington, Taranaki and Nelson Caretakers etc IUOW [1990] 2 NZILR 1079 ; [1991] 1 NZLR 151 ; (1990) 3 NZELC 97,985 ; (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 23 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_9.pdf [pdf 72 KB] |