| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 184 |
| Hearing date | 29 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 06 May 2011 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | T Oldfield ; K Single |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Thompson v Tauranga Environment Centre Charitable Trust |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Fixed term employment - Applicant claimed respondent relied on unlawful fixed term agreement to terminate employment – Applicant claimed respondent did not act in good faith as failed to consider alternatives to dismissal - Applicant sought compensation for hurt and humiliation - Following expiry of original fixed term agreement applicant re-employed on further fixed term agreements – Applicant claimed some agreements did not have end date or applicant’s signature – Current agreement specified new start and end dates but erroneously included date of original agreement in schedule – Authority found inclusion of earlier date indicated applicant’s new job description was only copy of description attached to applicant’s original agreement and all subsequent agreements – Respondent offered applicant one month extension after end of last employment agreement – Applicant informed respondent applicant a permanent, not fixed term, employee – Respondent presented applicant with new fixed term agreement stating parties confirmed funding issues reason for fixed term agreement – Applicant did not sign agreement and told respondent did not agree funding issues justified fixed term agreement – Respondent claimed applicant’s employment justifiably terminated in accordance with applicant’s temporary employment agreement - Claimed would be irresponsible to create expectation of permanent employment – Respondent arranged meeting with applicant to discuss redundancy possibility – Respondent gave applicant notice at meeting employment would cease at end of fixed term and if enough funding applicant invited to re-apply for position – Respondent claimed applicant agreed to fixed term after respondent offered new fixed term agreement – Authority found applicant not on fixed term agreement as respondent had not advised applicant had to stop work until applicant signed new agreement - Found employment agreements did not meet minimum requirements under Employment Relations Act 2000 as did not set out way employment would end or reasons for fixed term – Found respondent could not rely on fixed term if applicant elected to treat term as ineffective – Noted applicant continued working after fixed terms had expired – Found given circumstances applicant entitled to assume employment permanent, irrespective of earlier fixed term agreements – Found respondent incorrectly relied on fixed term agreement to terminate applicant’s employment – Applicant permanent employee - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Found applicant suffered hurt and humiliation - $3,000 compensation appropriate - Applicant sought compensation for lost wages – Authority noted funding received by respondent for applicant’s position had ceased – Noted if respondent had made applicant redundant applicant would have been given month’s notice of termination and two weeks’ notice of redundancy - Found applicant lost no wages as result of unjustified dismissal - Resource Management Act Advisor |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified dismissal) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Application dismissed (arrears of wages) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s66;ERA s66(5);ERA s66(6)(a);ERA s103A;ERA s124 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_184.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |