| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 24 |
| Hearing date | 22 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 19 January 2011 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | G Ogilvy ; C Loader (in person) |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Rangi v Loader |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant initially employed as waitress and grill cook at business (“X”) in Taup� – Respondent bought X – About two years later applicant offered and accepted position as Manager of another of respondent’s businesses (“RFS”) in Napier - Applicant struggled with staff issues and RFS lost money and turnover decreased – Applicant asked to be given one more month to prove could improve – RFS’s performance did not improve – Respondent decided to sell RFS to her son (“A”) – Applicant took period of leave – During applicant’s leave was called to meeting by respondent and advised respondent had sold shop to A and applicant did not need to return to work - Authority found not clear if RFS actually sold as business – Found no sale and purchase agreement between respondent and A – Found respondent continued to pay mortgage on premises – Found A ran RFS and took any profits but not paid as employee – Found appeared applicant dismissed from position and A put into position in her place - Found respondent’s actions not those of fair and reasonable employer - Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Fifty percent contributory conduct – Found as manager applicant accountable for success or otherwise of RFS – Found as consequence of applicant’s failure to stop RFS losing money respondent could no longer afford to pay manager to look after shop - Applicant sought reimbursement of three months lost wages – Applicant had asked for full time job back at X – Respondent offered part time work – Found applicant could have mitigated part of loss had accepted part time offer – Three months reimbursement of lost wages, subject to contribution, awarded - Found applicant gave compelling of evidence hurt and humiliation suffered as result of dismissal – Found applicant became homeless as had leased property, and embarrassed big move to better job had not worked out - Found $6,000 compensation, subject to contribution, appropriate - Applicant sought reimbursement of $300 costs associated with moving back to Taup� following dismissal – Found was reasonable expense would not have incurred but for dismissal – Found was therefore money lost as result of grievance – Found as reimbursement of actual costs not subject to finding on contribution – GOOD FAITH – Found applicant’s dismissal lacked procedural fairness – Found respondent made decision to dismiss without giving applicant opportunity to view information relevant to continuation of employment and comment on it - Found respondent breached good faith obligations owed to applicant - Found as no penalty sought none would be awarded - PENALTY - Applicant sought penalty for failure to provide written employment agreement – Authority found respondent failed to provide written employment agreement as statutorily required - $1,000 penalty appropriate – Shop Manager |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($9,600 reduced to $4,800) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000 reduced to $3,000) ; Relocation expenses ($300) ; Penalty ($1,000)(Payable to Crown) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s63A(2);ERA s124 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_24.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |