| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 29 |
| Hearing date | 3 Sep 2010 - 29 Sep 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 21 February 2011 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | J S Lim ; C Mundy-Smith, G Riach |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Ha v IFF 21 (New Zealand) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed employment covered by Part 6A of Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) – Applicant claimed told by manager of respondent (“K”) that new team had been arranged to replace applicant and applicant not to work at particular site anymore – K claimed told applicant job was safe and needed to discuss redeployment options – Director of respondent (“S”) claimed applicant behaved in highly offensive manner in phone call – Authority preferred applicant’s evidence as phone call with S made no sense if applicant still employed – Found more likely than not applicant was cross about losing job and sought to petition S to get it back – Found applicant dismissed by K – Found dismissal unjustified due to nature of discussion between K and applicant, immediacy of dismissal, absence of notice and complete absence of any process – Found respondent took over from applicant’s previous employer and continued informal subcontract arrangement with applicant – Found applicant in category of protected employee under Part 6A of ERA – Found applicant not provided with any election to transfer to new employer – However, found losses more apparent than real – Found applicant’s employment ended as a consequence of unjustified dismissal rather than redundancy and so principal benefits of Part 6A of ERA would not have applied in any event – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Found applicant suffered loss of face in community as result of losing job and humiliated by not being able to provide for family after dismissal which was aggravated by having to rely on wife for sustenance – Found applicant unable to find alternative employment and eventually had to leave New Zealand altogether – $1,000 reimbursement of lost wages appropriate – $5,000 compensation appropriate – Found respondent had not been guilty of wrongdoing sufficient to justify penalty – Found insufficient evidence regarding claim Inland Revenue Department had not been properly accounted to for applicant’s earnings – Cleaner |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($1,000) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA Part 6A |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_29.pdf [pdf 29 KB] |