Compensation for Humiliation etc Table

(s123(c)(i) ERA)

Employment Court and Employment Relations Authority

1 Jan 2001 – 31 Dec 2001

Amount of Award $	Employment Relations Authority	Employment Court
1 - 999	3
1,000 - 1,999	16
2,000 - 2,999	20
3,000 - 3,999	15
4,000 - 4,999	15
5,000 - 5,999	13
6,000 - 6,999	10
7,000 - 7,999	4
8,000 - 8,999	3
9,000 - 9,999	3
10,000 - 10,999	4	1
11,000 – 14,999	2
15,000	4
20,000

 

While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the information provided in this table, the Court, Authority and Information Centre accept no liability for any consequences that may arise from reliance on this data.  The awards shown above take into account any reduction for contributory fault.  Also note that Employment Relations Authority awards that have been set aside or altered by the Court are still included in the table.  A search of the headnotes used to compile this table can be obtained from the legal section of the Employment Institutions Information Centre.

Crown copyright 1997.  All rights reserved.  No part may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the copyright owner except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1994.  Infringement of copyright may result in criminal charges, a fine of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 months.  All requests for reproduction or copying of this table should be addressed to: The Legal Team, Workplace Information and Promotion, PO Box 3705, Wellington.

 

Exceptional Awards

Awards of $15,000 and over

Rush v Air New Zealand Ltd unreported, D King, 5 December 2002, AA 353/02

The applicant had been employed by the respondent as Captain on a Boeing 747-000.  On reaching the age of 60, he was compulsorily retired due to age restrictions on captains of aircrafts flying over US airspace.

The Authority found that the applicant had been discriminated against on the basis of age and that the discrimination was in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993.  The Authority further found that the applicant had been unjustifiably dismissed.  The respondent ignored the applicant’s clear statements that he did not want to retire, and instead failed to accommodate the applicant or to place him into another suitable position, of which some were available.

In determining compensation for humiliation, the Authority made a global award for the two successful personal grievances.  It compared the treatment of the applicant with the off-hand and careless treatment of a senior and loyal pilot in Smith v Air New Zealand [2000] 2 ERNZ 376 and found that the cavalier manner in which the applicant was dismissed was very distressing to him.  The Authority awarded $35,000 compensation.

Subritzky v Western Mailing Ltd & Ors unreported, GJ Wood, 2 October 2002, WA 97/02

The applicant was employed as a General Manager of the respondent.  His superiors had concerns regarding his performance.  After an annual review, the applicant received an email stating that the employment relationship was not salvageable and that he should think seriously about his future.  The applicant was suspended, and without any prior indication of the allegations, a disciplinary meeting was held.  At the end of the meeting, the applicant was dismissed and escorted off the premises.

The Authority found that the suspension and dismissal were both substantively and procedurally unjustified.  There were no grounds for summarily dismissing the applicant and no proper process was undertaken in respect of alleged poor performance. 

In regard to compensation for humiliation, the Authority stated that the applicant’s employment ended in dramatic circumstances.  He became depressed, socially withdrawn and had to put his life on hold, all as a result of the dismissal.  His career prospects suffered and financial consequences arose.  The Authority determined that an appropriate award of compensation was $27,000.

Chalton v Wood And Partners Consultants Ltd unreported, WRC Gardiner, 13 September 2002, AA 275/02

The applicant was employed by the respondent as its senior resource planner.  She was dismissed a few months after her partner left the respondent’s employ and started working for a competitor.  The applicant’s dismissal came after the respondent discovered that the competitor had secured a contract previously belonging to the respondent.  The respondent felt that the applicant had, in some way, been involved with the loss of the contract.

The applicant was given no notice of the allegations against her before the disciplinary meeting, or that the meeting could result in her dismissal.  The directors took offence when the applicant’s tone became aggressive in the meeting and gave her a pre-prepared letter of dismissal.  The dismissal was procedurally unfair.  Further the Authority determined that there were no grounds on which the respondent could have justifiably dismissed the applicant. 

In regards to compensation for humiliation, the Authority found that the following factors warranted a higher award of compensation.  First, the applicant should not have been dismissed at all, let alone summarily and without fair procedure; second, she faced a dilemma of what to say to prospective employers; and third, there was medical evidence as well as evidence from the applicant and her mother, concerning the effects of the dismissal on the applicant.  An award of $25,000 compensation was considered appropriate with a 10 percent deduction for contributory conduct, resulting in a final award of $22,500.

Fehlmann v Waikato Institute of Technology unreported, WRC Gardiner, 30 October, AA 318/02

The applicant was employed by the respondent as a lecturer.  Upon receiving a complaint about the applicant’s teaching from students, the respondent failed to implement the proper student complaint procedure.  Further, the applicant’s rights and needs were disregarded in the disciplinary process.  Meetings were held with all of his students to offer support and request any written complaints.  Only one student out of 16 in the class chose to make a written complaint and no students were individually spoken to before the decision was made to dismiss.  The applicant’s teaching was observed but only after the decision to dismiss had been made.

The Authority found that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally unjustified.  In regards to compensation for humiliation, the Authority took into consideration the applicant’s 16 years of service for the respondent and the fact that the dismissal removed him from a career which was important to him.  It also considered the fact that the decision to dismiss was made before the applicant was observed and that the respondent had presented false evidence in relation to that fact.  An award of $15,000 compensation was considered appropriate.

Good Health Wanganui v Burberry unreported, Judge Shaw, 10 December 2002, WC 25B/02

The defendant was employed by the plaintiff as a maori mental health worker.  She was dismissed after taking annual leave, which had previously been declined.  Notice that the application for leave had been declined was given one day before the leave was due to be taken and the basis on which it was said to be declined at the Court hearing, was not made clear to the defendant at the time. 

The dismissal procedure was said by the Court to have been unfair and culturally inappropriate.  No notice was given of the allegations against the defendant, nor was the defendant aware, until a few minutes before it was scheduled to start, that the meeting she was required to attend, could have resulted in her dismissal. 

In regard to compensation for humiliation, the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the impact of the loss of the job on the defendant, and the consequent loss of mana in the local community.  Her psychological and emotional health were clearly affected and as a result she was unable to apply for alternative employment.  The indignities she was exposed to at the time of the dismissal compounded her humiliation and shame.  It was considered that $15,000 was an appropriate award of compensation.