| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 119 |
| Hearing date | 22 Mar 2011 |
| Determination date | 29 March 2011 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | CJ Leggott (in person) ; B Hullia |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Leggott v Car Styles Panel and Paint Ltd |
| Summary | ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant claimed when employment ended final pay incorrect - Applicant sought payment for final day of employment and holiday pay - Respondent claimed withheld final day's pay as applicant did not work full day and was rude and aggressive - Claimed deduction from holiday pay was in lieu of notice as applicant gave only one week’s notice instead of three weeks required in employment agreement (“EA”) - Applicant resigned giving one week’s notice - Applicant claimed had not seen EA since employment began but assumed as paid weekly and other employees had resigned with short notice period one week would be sufficient - Next day respondent showed applicant copy of EA and told applicant needed to stay while replacement found - Applicant concerned as had told new employer could start within that time - Dispute between parties as to how applicant responded to requirement to stay - Following week respondent informed applicant had found temporary replacement - Parties agreed applicant would finish following day - Parties disputed what happened on applicant’s final day of employment - Respondent claimed applicant arrived late, came back from lunch late, asked to be allowed to continue working after all, and became threatening and aggressive to point respondent called police and had applicant trespassed - Applicant denied asked to continue working and claimed had no reason to be threatening and aggressive as situation had turned out as wanted - Authority found EA stated three weeks notice required and pay in lieu of notice could be paid or forfeited - Found respondent’s own evidence that told applicant could leave as had found replacement - Found in circumstances where agreement reached forfeiture clause could not apply - Found respondent not entitled to make deductions from applicant’s holiday pay - Found had applicant behaved in way respondent claimed respondent would have been justified in asking him to leave premises - However, found respondent not justified in refusing to pay applicant for hours worked - Found respondent’s claims as to applicant’s conduct not credible - Found therefore no basis for respondent sending applicant away - Applicant entitled to full day’s pay for final day of employment - Respondent ordered to pay outstanding arrears of wages and holiday pay |
| Result | Application granted ; Arrears of wages ($156) ; Holiday pay ($1,560) ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Arrears |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_119.pdf [pdf 20 KB] |