| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 155 |
| Hearing date | 26 Aug 2011 |
| Determination date | 10 October 2011 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | E Spark ; W van Harselaar |
| Location | Queenstown |
| Parties | Spark v Queenstown Pharmacy 2008 Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed was offered fulltime position with no fixed hours – Respondent claimed only offered applicant as many hours as possible but told applicant would be variable – Respondent’s manager (“C”) claimed spoke with applicant several times about how hours were dependent on success of business – Authority found applicant understood respondent could only offer applicant work when hours available – Respondent claimed first employment agreement (“EA”) applicant given was copy of C’s EA and included clauses not applicable to applicant – Applicant signed first EA but not given copy and respondent did not have copy – Respondent claimed EA applicant signed only copy of C’s EA – Found likely applicant signed copy of C’s EA which did not specify hours – Applicant told by C to find another job if could as respondent not doing well and applicant’s hours decreased – C claimed when realised had given wrong EA to applicant sent applicant pre-signed copy of correct EA month after applicant’s employment commenced – Second EA stated applicant’s hours were as and when required – Applicant dismissed day after returned signed copy of second EA – Applicant claimed dismissal terrible shock and no warning employment would end – Found applicant must have been aware respondent not doing well after reduction of hours – C claimed had not told applicant was redundant rather that no able to offer applicant any hours – Found applicant dismissed for redundancy but respondent did not consult with applicant – Found at very least respondent should have engaged with applicant about how applicant could contribute to respondent’s continuity – Found even if EA did not provide for fixed hours respondent still had obligation to treat applicant fairly and in good faith – Unjustified dismissal – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Found dismissal caused applicant great distress but employment was of short duration and applicant never worked many hours - $1,000 reimbursement of lost wages appropriate - $2,000 compensation appropriate – COSTS – Length of investigation meeting not specified – Costs to lie where they fall - Retail Assistant |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($1,000) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) ; Costs to lie where they fall ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s67A |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_155.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |