| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 108 |
| Hearing date | 2 Feb 2011 |
| Determination date | 22 March 2011 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | W Simpson ; P Tatham |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kruthoffer v DRK Chartered Accountants Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent – Applicant claimed hours unjustifiably reduced – Respondent claimed business experienced seasonal variations – Respondent claimed gave applicant additional hours and extra tasks during busy period – Applicant claimed respondent agreed to applicant’s appointment to vacant full time position – Respondent claimed applicant merely asked for extra hours as had done previously – Applicant’s hours reduced – Respondent claimed initially no guarantee of hours to be worked – Authority found no grounds for applicant’s expectation that full time hours initially intended, advertised or discussed with applicant – Found any reasonable person in applicant’s position would have believed director had authority to offer full time position – Found lack of documentation of applicant’s appointment did not support respondent’s contention no appointment took place – Found applicant’s hours unilaterally reduced – Found implementation of reduction fell short of standards expected of fair and reasonable employer – Unjustified disadvantage – Applicant claimed unjustifiably denied option to work ‘glide time’ – Applicant claimed previously allowed to work flexible hours – Applicant claimed respondent removed flexibility by requiring applicant to work three hours per day – Applicant claimed significant implication in terms of travelling time and expenses – Found respondent did not act deliberately to cause applicant’s resignation – Found fair and reasonable employer would have acted in good faith and consulted with applicant about change – Unjustified disadvantage – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged through non-provision of employment agreement (“EA”) – Found respondent acted in breach of good faith by not providing EA – Found confusion about applicant’s hours could have been avoided if covered in EA – Unjustified disadvantage – REMEDIES – Applicant sought reinstatement to full time employment – Respondent claimed applicant never employed on full time basis – Found applicant to be reinstated to full time employment – Parties to determine reimbursement of lost wages – $6,000 compensation for reduction in hours appropriate - $1,000 compensation for removal of option to work ‘glide time’ appropriate - $3,000 compensation for failure to provide EA appropriate – Authority recommended respondent issue applicant with employment agreement |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (parties to determine) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000)(reduction in hours) ($1,000)(removal of option to work glide time) ($3,000)(failure to provide employment agreement) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s63A;ERA s65;ERA s103A;ERA s125 |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v V [2009] ERNZ 185;Fuiava v Air New Zealand Limited [2006] ERNZ 806;Nelson v Porirua Community Law Resource Centre Incorporated [1993] 2 ERNZ 1109 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_108.pdf [pdf 51 KB] |