Search results

Results 7701-7710 of 21097

  • New Zealand Fishing Industry Guild Inc v Sealord Group Ltd

    David Appleton [Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch]

    Summary:
    DISPUTE – Parties disputed compliance with obligation to consult for Catch Plan (“CP”) increases and alignment with Catch Pay Plans (“CPP”) pursuant to Collective Employment Agreement (“CEA”) – Whether respondents…
    Result:
    Questions answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved

  • Jemmett v Saunders

    James Crichton [Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch]

    Summary:
    UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Summary dismissal – PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for failure to provide employment agreement and failure to…
    Result:
    Application granted (unjustified dismissal) ; Contributory conduct (35%) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($3,000) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,000) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($750) ; Application dismissed (penalty)

  • Griffiths v Witchery Fashions (NZ) Ltd

    Eleanor Robinson [Employment Relations Authority - Auckland]

    Summary:
    COUNTERCLAIM - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Respondent sought to strike out claim as frivolous or vexatious – Visual Merchandiser
    Result:
    Application dismissed ; Costs reserved

  • Pretorius v Marra Construction (2004) Ltd

    Eleanor Robinson [Employment Relations Authority - Auckland]

    Summary:
    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Determination of preliminary issue – Whether applicant’s arrears of wages claim time-barred – Quantity Surveyor
    Result:
    Application partially granted ; Costs reserved

  • McCormack v Niu

    Helen Doyle [Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch]

    Summary:
    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor Performance – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – 90 day trial – COSTS – Applicant sought contribution…
    Result:
    Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($12,334) ; Compensation for loss of benefit ($370.02) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($12,000) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($2,500) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.56)(filing fee)

  • Edminstin v Sanford Ltd and Anor

    Helen Doyle [Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch]

    Summary:
    COUNTERCLAIM – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Second respondent sought to dismiss claims as frivolous or vexatious – Whether Authority able to order compliance order against company person not party to…
    Result:
    Application granted ; Costs reserved

  • Dempsey v Tauranga Horological Ltd

    Vicki Campbell [Employment Relations Authority - Auckland]

    Summary:
    UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - COSTS – Applicant sought contribution to costs
    Result:
    Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (quantum to be determined) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($7,500) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1,750)

  • The Pulp and Paper Industry Council of the Manufacturing and Construction Workers' Union and Anor v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd and Anor

    V Campbell [Employment Relations Authority - Auckland]

    Summary:
    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicants sought removal of matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on ground EC already had before it proceedings between same parties involving same or similar issues
    Result:
    Application granted ; No order for costs

  • Wilson v Maori Hill Montessori Preschool Ltd

    David Appleton [Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch]

    Summary:
    RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Whether grievance raised within 90 days – Whether exceptional circumstances – Preschool teacher
    Result:
    Application dismissed ; Costs reserved

  • Hansen v Shooting Star Enterprises Ltd t/a Fusion Salon

    Eleanor Robinson [Employment Relations Authority - Auckland]

    Summary:
    UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by lack of training and stress caused by respondent’s director – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent…
    Result:
    Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved