Compensation for Humiliation etc Table

(s123(c)(i) ERA)

Employment Court and Employment Relations Authority

1 Jan 2002 – 31 Dec 2002

Amount of Award $	Employment Relations Authority  (164)	Employment Court (6)
1 - 999	7
1,000 - 1,999	25
2,000 - 2,999	24	1
3,000 - 3,999	25	1
4,000 - 4,999	22
5,000 - 5,999	20	1
6,000 - 6,999	11	1
7,000 - 7,999	6
8,000 - 8,999	10
9,000 - 9,999	2	1
10,000 - 10,999	5
11,000 – 11,999	1
12,000 – 12,999	1
13,000 – 13,999	1
14,000 – 14,999
15,000 -	4	1

 

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

$15,000 compensation for humiliation etc

Easterbrook v Cycle & Carriage (City) Ltd unreported, PR Stapp, 27 February 2001, WA 4/01

The applicant was employed by the respondent as a salesperson.  She was turned down for appointment to a new job within the respondent company and resigned the following day.  The Authority accepted the applicant’s evidence that she was told the reason for the decision to appoint another employee instead of her was that “an Asian would better suit the role” and that “she would not be taken seriously as she was a woman”.  It was held that the respondent’s actions constituted grounds for discrimination and were reason enough for the applicant to lose trust and confidence in her employer.  In making the award for compensation the Authority considered the effect the dismissal had on the applicant including her breaking into tears and her feelings about work and stress.  There was no claim for loss of wages.

Hamilton v Frontline Finance Ltd unreported, P Cheyne, 20 April 2001, CA 11/01

The applicant was employed by the respondent as a business banking manager.  A decision was made to sell part of the respondent business and all operational employees, including the applicant, were to continue their employment.  The Authority held that the actions of the respondent in the negotiations for the sale of part of the business caused the applicant to get the wrong impression about job security when the respondent knew a potential redundancy situation was looming.  The applicant was subsequently dismissed during a telephone call.  The Authority found that the respondent breached its duty to deal with the applicant in good faith, that its selection process was unfair, and that the change from an expectation of ongoing employment to dismissal was very sudden.  It noted that the emotional effect on the applicant was significant and accepted his wife’s evidence that he was confused, shocked, withdrawn, depressed, suffered from feelings of worthlessness and a loss of self esteem, became reclusive and felt fearful about their future.

Duncan v Indicator E-Commerce Ltd t/a 3WI South Pacific unreported, D Asher, 26 October 2001, WA 73/01

There was no appearance for the respondent at the hearing and in the absence of any reason to find against the applicant the Authority was satisfied that her evidence was credible and accurate.  The Authority held that the applicant was an employee of the respondent and not an independent contractor as the company had alleged.  It found the applicant had accepted a verbal offer of remuneration which the respondent unjustifiably altered after she had started work.  The applicant had received an email raising performance concerns and soon after received another email terminating her employment without notice.  It held that, consistent with well-established case law, the applicant’s dismissal was grossly unjustifiable, both procedurally and substantively.  In assessing the award for compensation the Authority observed that the applicant gave compelling evidence of the effects of the dismissal on her and her inability to find new employment.

Morris v Tairawhiti Health Board unreported, YS Oldfield, 29 October 2001, AA 170/01

The applicant was employed by the respondent as a laboratory manager.  As a result of an audit of the performance of the laboratory several areas of concern were identified and the respondent decided to commence a formal disciplinary investigation into the applicant’s management practices.  The respondent suspended the applicant while he was on sick leave and he subsequently resigned at the end of the disciplinary process.  The Authority held that the applicant’s suspension constituted an unjustified disadvantage, as it was not required.  It was also found to be procedurally unfair as the suspension was sprung on the applicant in the harshest of ways, without warning, at a time when he had barely recovered from a serious illness.  However, the Authority held that the applicant was not constructively dismissed, as his resignation was premature, he had not communicated the full extent of his difficulties and the suspension was not a sufficiently serious breach to constitute a dismissal.  In its assessment of remedies, the Authority accepted that the consequences of the suspension were very severe for the applicant.  He previously had an unblemished record and had been at the laboratory for 20 years.  His health was still not 100 percent and there was coverage in the local media.