| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 95 |
| Hearing date | 10 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 30 June 2011 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | S Graham ; A Boniface |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Isherwood v Insyn Ltd |
| Summary | PARENTAL LEAVE - Applicant claimed respondent terminated employment during parental leave - Applicant claimed discussed with respondent's director (G") would return to work after 14 weeks paid parental leave ("PPL") - Applicant claimed completed Inland Revenue Department ("IRD") PPL form with G's assistance including return to work date - G claimed did not have return date for applicant, thought date on form only referred to end of PPL and applicant automatically entitled to 12 months leave - Applicant did not give formal notice of under s31 Paid Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 ("PLEPA") - Applicant emailed G about hours and claimed G's response vague and non-committal - G denied received applicant's letter advising of intention to return to work - Authority found unlikely respondent received applicant's formal letter - Found parties did not agree on return date but later emails from applicant notified respondent wanted to return - Found PLEPA notice requirements not complied with and only documentation was IRD PPL form - G claimed usually made informal parental leave arrangements with employees and never received formal notice - Authority found parties acted in good faith - Found could grant relief and applicant entitled to parental leave - Applicant claimed went into workplace to organise return to work dates but co-workers said could not find rosters - Applicant assumed made redundant after told by colleague who attended staff meeting franchise sold and some employees made redundant - Found little evidence respondent attempted to notify applicant of staff meeting - Applicant claimed respondent unilaterally terminated employment without prior consultation or valid reason - Respondent claimed had not terminated applicant's employment as applicant employed by other franchises and suggested meeting to discuss return to work - Authority found applicant's employment not terminated and no breach of s56(1)(b) PLEPA - Found applicant disadvantaged as respondent's failure to notify applicant of staff meeting breached s56(1)(c) PLEPA - REMEDIES - Found remedies provided for under PLEPA - Found no agreement applicant's hours would be reduced on return and could not make award on that basis - Found applicant did not attempt to contact respondent after told about staff meeting - Reimbursement of lost wages not appropriate - Found applicant's humiliation could have been reduced if contacted respondent earlier - $4,000 compensation appropriate - Hair Care Assistant" |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Parental Leave |
| Statutes | ERA s103(1)(a);ERA s103(1)(b);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s31;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s39;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s41;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s49(1);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s56(1)(b);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s56(1)(c);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s56(2);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s65;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s68 |
| Cases Cited | Lewis v Greene [2004] 2 ERNZ 55 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_95.pdf [pdf 46 KB] |