-
Kay v Maori Boy Glass Ltd
R A Monaghan [Employment Relations Authority - Auckland]
- Summary:
- COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought compliance with settlement agreement – Applicant claimed payments withheld – Applicant claimed prospective employer unable to speak with respondent director (“K”) regarding reference – K…
- Result:
- Application granted (compliance order) ; Compliance ordered ; Application dismissed (counterclaim) (penalty) ; No order for costs ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.56)(filing fee)
-
Plumbing and Gas Works Ltd v Bryant
J Crichton [Employment Relations Authority - Auckland]
- Summary:
- PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for alleged breach of confidentiality clause in settlement agreement – Respondent notified of complaint concerning tradesman registration – Respondent believed applicant sent complaint – Respondent…
- Result:
- Application dismissed ; Costs to lie where they fall
-
Talbot v Air New Zealand and Anor
K J Anderson [Employment Relations Authority - Auckland]
- Summary:
- COSTS – Unsuccessful dispute – Half day investigation meeting – First respondent sought $5,000 contribution to costs – First respondent claimed higher costs award appropriate because applicant rejected reasonable offer,…
- Result:
- Costs in favour of first respondent ($1,500) ; No order for costs (second respondent)
-
Clarke v Air New Zealand Ltd
G J Wood [Employment Relations Authority - Wellington]
- Summary:
- UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by respondent – Respondent employee informed respondent ramp services manager (“B”) of altercation between applicant…
- Result:
- Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
-
Marolda v Virtual Infrastructure Professionals NZ Ltd
J Crichton [Employment Relations Authority - Auckland]
- Summary:
- JURISDICTION – Whether employee or independent contractor – Respondent employed two other employees at same time as applicant – Common ground relationship between parties initially one of employment – Respondent…
- Result:
- Application dismissed ; Costs to lie where they fall
-
Sigglekow v Waikato District Health Board
R Larmer [Employment Relations Authority - Auckland]
- Summary:
- COSTS – Successful personal grievance – One day investigation meeting – Applicant sought $4,500 contribution to $8,950 total costs – Respondent claimed costs should lie where they fall as amount…
- Result:
- Costs in favour of applicant ($1,500) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.56)(filing fee)
-
Ball v Anglican Trust for Women and Children
K J Anderson [Employment Relations Authority - Auckland]
- Summary:
- UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed Respondent Chief Executive Officer (“W”) said applicant’s role too big and would be suited to different…
- Result:
- Applications granted ; Contributory conduct (100%)(unjustified dismissal) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000)(unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved
-
Allen v C3 Ltd
E Robinson [Employment Relations Authority - Auckland]
- Summary:
- UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Supervisor (“C”) claimed sent text message to applicant asking to work public holiday and applicant confirmed was…
- Result:
- Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
-
Cornish v Everlast Contruction Ltd
R Arthur [Employment Relations Authority - Auckland]
- Summary:
- UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed dismissal not for genuine commercial purpose and not carried out fairly – Parties agreed that at…
- Result:
- Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) ; Costs reserved
-
Hagger v Centreport Ltd
A Dumbleton [Employment Relations Authority - Wellington]
- Summary:
- UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant tested positive for marijuana after submitted to urine test – Respondent’s work policies strictly prohibited employees…
- Result:
- Application dismissed ; Costs reserved