|
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Barr v P and L Byrne Farming Partnership
31 Mar 2008, H Doyle, CA 31/08, (6 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Identity of employer - Parties agreed during directions conference respondent correct employer - JURISDICTION - Applicant employed for season by sharemilker ("L") - Applicant also job shared with husband ("H") - No additional cost to respondent when applicant performed H's duties - L advised applicant and H that leaving farm and therefore no longer employed by L - Respondent offered position of lower order sharemilker on farm by then owners - Applicant claimed was person intending to work for respondent - Applicant claimed employment did not go ahead and unjustifiably dismissed when H dismissed - Applicant claimed felt employment treated as added on to H - Respondent argued job offer only made to applicant on condition employment agreement signed - Respondent argued offer to applicant did not include farm accommodation applicant residing in - Authority found applicant's acceptance of offer of employment capable of being inferred because of common elements shared with H - Found applicant to carry on with arrangement that had with L - Found offer to applicant not conditional on signing EA - Found applicant and respondent intended to and did enter into binding EA - Found applicant person intending to work as relief milker on job share basis with H - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Authority found when H dismissed respondent took no steps to advise applicant that employment would continue - Found dismissal occurred in absence of clarification by respondent to contrary - No attempt by respondent to justify dismissal - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Authority took into account respondent's attempt to make clear to applicant position available on farm went someway to reducing humiliation suffered - No contributory conduct - $2000 compensation appropriate - Milker
Result: Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) ; Costs reserved
Bennett v NZ Mushrooms Ltd
29 Feb 2008, V Campbell, AA 73/08, (10 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Summary dismissal - Incompatibility - Misconduct - Six months prior, applicant given warning letter regarding behaviour - Applicant underwent training regarding introduction of bullying policy - Applicant advised a supervisor ("J") that wished to speak to trainer about issues relating to bullying - Request not revisited by respondent - Applicant overheard comment made by applicant's supervisor ("T") to co-worker ("S") - Applicant made note of incident - Applicant showed note to co-workers - T filed incident report and made formal complaint about applicant's behaviour - J told applicant T felt harassed and bullied as felt applicant encouraging co-workers to gang up on T - At first disciplinary meeting respondent advised applicant of investigation and process - Applicant explained wrote note because bullying training had advised to in case would be used as witness - At second disciplinary meeting, respondent put allegations to applicant - Support person raised concerns T bully - At final disciplinary meeting, respondent dismissed applicant, claiming applicant disruptive and disharmonious which led to serious incompatibility - Authority found case law regarding incompatibility showed employee must receive clear warnings that behaviour having detrimental effect on workplace, and that employee's conduct must be strikingly serious - Found applicant received clear advice six months prior that inappropriate behaviour could lead to disciplinary action - Under employment agreement ("EA"), disciplinary action for inappropriate behaviour was usually warning, and after two warnings employee may be dismissed - Found applicant dismissed because T's complaint found to have substance and respondent concluded no improvement in behaviour since prior warning - Found although applicant's behaviour not as innocent as claimed, not at level for respondent to conclude destroyed trust and confidence - Found warning in accordance with EA was appropriate penalty - Found respondent did not take applicant's allegations of bullying raised at second meeting seriously enough, as only briefly investigated then dismissed allegations - Dismissal unjustified - REMEDIES - Found S advised applicant that T apologised, but applicant continued to discuss incident with co-workers - Authority found 25 percent contributory conduct - Applicant claimed 17 weeks lost wages - Authority found applicant did not sufficiently mitigate loss - Found three months lost wages appropriate, subject to contributory conduct - Found dismissal humiliating and distressing for applicant after eight years service - Compensation appropriate - Mushroom picker
Result: Application granted (dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($3,471.39 reduced to $2,603.54) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000 reduced to $3,750) ; Costs reserved
Cameron v Axo Shredders Ltd
20 Mar 2009, P R Stapp, WA 32/09, (12 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant employed by respondent to work in United Kingdom ("UK") - After entering UK applicant worked without work visa - Applicant deported back to New Zealand ("NZ") - Applicant claimed suffered unjustified disadvantage due to deportation and health and safety issues in UK - Dispute between parties as to whose responsibility it was to obtain work visa ("visa") - Employment agreement ("EA") made no provision for obtaining work visa - Authority found both parties to take responsibility for failure to obtain visa - Applicant worked and accepted pay when on visitor's visa and took no direct action to obtain visa - Respondent condoned situation by paying applicant and acting as if visa obtained - Authority found respondent's failure to ensure applicant had visa breach of good faith and mutual obligations under EA - Found applicant also had responsibility to ensure visa obtained - Found no deliberate misrepresentation by respondent - Applicant had many issues with workplace conditions in UK - Authority found applicant not established vehicle, accommodation, and work premises unsafe and unhealthy, and that respondent breached general health and safety obligations in EA - Respondent produced sufficient evidence met obligation of taking all practicable steps to provide safe and healthy work environment - PENALTY - Authority found respondent's breach of obligation to act in good faith did not warrant penalty - No deliberate or wilful misrepresentation by respondent over work arrangements - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL- Applicant claimed took four days leave on return to NZ and later told by respondent not to return to work - Respondent claimed applicant requested indefinite leave of absence - Authority found applicant's employment ended when took leave of absence and accepted final pay - Authority agreed applicant accepted final pay as in financial difficulty - Found final payout not necessarily proof of dismissal initiated by employer - Found no actual resignation or dismissal as such - No written details of any dismissal from either party - ARREARS OF WAGES, HOLIDAY PAY AND OTHER MONIES - At investigation meeting parties agreed that applicant's claim for alleged underpayment of salary and respondent's counterclaim for recovery of monies be referred to independent auditor - Parties to be bound by outcome of audit - Any recovery and enforcement remained matter for Authority - Authority found applicant's claim for payment of commission not established as applicant unable to prove amount owed, if any - Applicant claimed unpaid leave on basis of hours worked in excess of contracted hours - Authority found under terms of employment agreement all hours fully compensated for by salary - Time in lieu provided for on call work or work on public holidays - Insufficient evidence provided of hours worked or statutory holidays involved - Claim dismissed - Applicant unable to show how respondent's holiday pay records incorrect - Application for unpaid holiday pay dismissed - No contractual basis for applicant to claim replacement of clothing and tools - Claim dismissed - Installation engineer
Result: Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Cloete v Tyres Direct Ltd
12 Mar 2008, M Urlich, AA 89/08, (7 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed - Respondent claimed employment terminated by operation of valid fixed term agreement ("FTA") - Authority found fixed term clause in employment agreement met requirements of s66 Employment Relations Act 2000 - Applicant requested meeting to discuss issues with salary payments and work vehicle - At meeting applicant advised fixed term clause invoked and employment terminated immediately due to respondent's financial situation - Applicant paid until expiry of fixed term - Authority found FTA could not end through notice at will - Authority found applicant's employment did not end by operation of fixed term agreement as fixed term not ended - Found applicant made redundant - Authority satisfied genuine redundancy - However, respondent failed to discuss redundancy proposal with applicant and allow opportunity for comment - Applicant not treated fairly and reasonably - Dismissal unjustified - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed incurred bank fees as result of late payment of salary on two occasions - Authority found bank records showed salary paid on specified date each month - Authority found link between bank fees and salary payment not made out - Applicant claimed suffered disadvantage when company vehicle issued with exchanged for another - Parties disputed number of times vehicle exchanges occurred - Strongest element of applicant's claim, if could be made out, that respondent failed to discuss exchange and attempt to accommodate applicant's concerns - However, claim not specific enough for Authority to make any findings - No unjustified disadvantage - REMEDIES - No contributory conduct - Applicant's claim for lost wages could not succeed as received all monies owed under valid FTA - Dismissal placed financial and emotional stress on applicant and applicant's family - $3,000 compensation appropriate - COUNTERCLAIM - Recovery of monies - Respondent sought repayment of alleged salary advances - Applicant denied any salary advances made - Respondent provided no evidence to support claim - Respondent also sought reimbursement of costs to repair company vehicle applicant damaged - Applicant admitted damaged vehicle - When damage reported at time respondent took no action Authority found respondent had no grounds to revive issue post dismissal - Claims dismissed - COSTS - Applicant to be reimbursed filing fee - Senior Sales Consultant
Result: Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Application dismissed (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Application dismissed (Counterclaim) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)
Lee v Minor Developments Ltd t/a Before Six Early Education Childhood Centre
14 Feb 2008, D King, AA 46/08, (10 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Respondent's manager ("A") argued offered applicant casual employment with respondent - A argued provided applicant with standard casual employment agreement ("EA") - Applicant claimed available to work during week except Friday and weekends - A claimed applicant wanted husband to read EA before signed - Applicant sought letter from A confirming hours of work - A made multiple requests for applicant to return signed EA - Applicant later claimed never received EA - Authority found applicant given casual EA as contended by A - A issued all staff except applicant with new permanent EAs - Applicant provided with casual EA and not new permanent EA because only unsigned casual employee - Applicant did not raise any issues about new EA with A - Applicant's new EA stated employment "as required" - Downturn in work required respondent to reduce staff hours - Applicant's hours to be reduced due to casual status and lack of training - Applicant had meeting with A where told would work 3 days a week and additional hours if enrolments increased - Applicant claimed told applicant felt marginalised because believed EA permanent - First time permanency of employment raised with respondent - A argued applicant asked for letter stating in casual employment and never asked to be permanent - A told applicant fully qualified teacher would be employed to assist A and applicant not required over summer period - Applicant told would be contacted again when work increased - Applicant told A not interested in further casual work and going home to look after children - Authority rejected applicants claim fact raised issues about respondent with Ministry of Education reason for redundancy - Authority also rejected applicant's assertion that made into respondent's cleaner - Applicant claimed offer of training significant factor in accepting employment with respondent - A denied any commitment by respondent to provide education - Authority found A did not mislead applicant as to Ministry of Education's requirements - Authority concluded applicant did not express early interest in obtaining a qualification but interest expressed at later date - Authority satisfied A did not make promises to applicant regarding funding for training - Authority found applicant's employment not irregular as anticipated by unsigned EAs - Authority concluded respondent intended to offer casual work but in practice work permanent part time - Found substantive justification for redundancy - Authority did not accept applicant's argument that marginalised - Manner in which dismissal effected unfair - No opportunity to be represented and decision predetermined - Dismissal unjustified - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Authority found reduction in hours disadvantaged applicant - No breaches of good faith - Remedies - Authority found being redundancy, no issue of contributory conduct - Found any lost remuneration due to redundancy not personal grievance - Authority found given distress suffered by applicant $2000 compensation appropriate - Reliever caregiver
Result: Application granted (Dismissal)(Disadvantage) ; Compensation for humilitation etc ($2000) ; Costs reserved
Macdonald v Gifkins t/a Grey Lynn Veterinary Clinic and Anor
22 Feb 2008, R Arthur, AA 59/08, (14 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Identity of employer - First respondent sole director of second respondent - Second respondent limited liability company - No appearance for respondents - In statement in reply respondents argued no employment relationship between applicant and first respondent - Authority found no mention in employment agreement ("EA") of limited liability company - Authority accepted applicant's evidence that no reference to company during employment - Found legal identity of second respondent never disclosed to applicant - Correct employer first respondent not second respondent - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant discussed concerns with first respondent - That evening, applicant sent first respondent text message saying was not up to work next day - Next morning, first respondent called applicant to ask if coming to work - After brief discussion, first respondent said "we have hit a wall then ... we need to part ways" - Applicant emailed first respondent to ask if was dismissed - When received no reply, applicant went to work - First respondent had changed locks - Applicant informed first respondent that taking legal advice - Third party ("L") called applicant claiming told to settle matters on behalf of first respondent - Applicant made appointment to collect personal property from first respondent's premises - L cancelled appointment - Applicant contacted police to arrange collection of property - Applicant served with trespass notice - Authority found employment terminated when applicant arrived at workplace to find locks changed without notice - Found also more likely than not that words of first respondent about parting ways constituted words of dismissal - Found taken together actions clearly intended to send applicant away and amounted to dismissal - Found first respondent failed to meet obligations to address applicant's concerns in manner consistent with good faith obligations - Found instead responded in unfair and unreasonable manner by dismissing applicant - Dismissal unjustified - REMEDIES - Applicant on sickness benefit - Applicant had not pursued some employment options due to personal or moral views about workplaces - One month's "time out" in Australia not included in lost wages - Wage and time records not provided - Authority relied on applicant's assessment of average wages - Sixteen weeks lost wages appropriate - Earnings from applicant's part time temporary employment to be deducted from lost wages award - Authority found applicant humiliated when locked out in front of client and as peers in small industry believed dismissed for misconduct - Found compounded by first respondent's petty behaviour in failing to return applicant's personal property and instigating trespass order - Authority found applicant suffered medical problems connected to circumstances of dismissal - Compensation award appropriate - Applicant sought return of personal property - Authority found inconsistent with mutual obligation of trust, confidence and fair dealing to refuse to make reasonable arrangements to return property - Found if return not arranged within two weeks of determination, compensation award to be increased by $2,000, as compensation for loss of benefit - Authority found respondent promised applicant benefit of attendance at overseas conference as personal development - Authority found loss of opportunity of attend constituted loss of benefit - Authority awarded sum to mark loss - No contributory conduct - ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - As respondent provided no wage and leave records, Authority relied on applicant's evidence to assess holiday pay - Authority found holiday pay owing - PENALTY - Authority found remedies awarded satisfactorily dealt with issues of personal property and holiday pay - Authority found first respondent showed no good reason for failure to provide records - Penalty payable to Crown appropriate - Veterinary nurse
Result: Application granted (dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (16 weeks)($10,640) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($3,137) ; Loss of chance ($1,000)(personal development conference) ; Orders made (return of personal property)(failing return, $2,000 to be added to compensation) ; Penalty ($500)(Payable to Crown) ; Costs reserved
Morgan v Watkins Young & Company t/a Briargate Dementia Care Residence & Anor
4 Mar 2008, L Robinson, AA 71/08, (9 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Applicant sought first and second respondent be jointly and severally liable for any remedies awarded - Second respondent ("W") sole director of first respondent - Respondent argued applicant resigned following unsuccessful attempt for salary review - Authority noted prior to investigation meeting subject matter involved possibly criminal conduct - Authority considered would not require W to answer any incriminating questions - Applicant reconciled trust account as part of duties - Applicant informed allegedly unlawful withdrawals made by W - Applicant regarded withdrawals from trust account highly unethical and improper - Applicant discussed disapproval with other staff members including manager ("M") - When questioned by applicant, W said borrowed money from account and amounts recorded - Authority found W told applicant that wanted applicant to be happy in work and would pay money back - Applicant declined to set up general ledger for W's wife - Applicant discovered second allegedly unlawful withdrawal from trust account by W - Following day applicant confronted W about second withdrawal - W told applicant would hand reconciliation of trust account file to external accountants because applicant making "too big a deal of it" - Applicant resolved W unlikely to repay monies allegedly taken unlawfully - Applicant met again with W to discuss trust account and employment agreement ("EA") - W unhappy applicant discussed trust account with M and declined work for W's wife - W also unhappy applicant enquired whether transactions personal or business - Applicant claimed employed to do first respondent's accounts and not that of other entity - Claimed to do job correctly needed to know whether transactions personal or business - Applicant claimed told by W if didn't like it then knew what to do - Applicant claimed felt no choice but to leave employment - Authority not satisfied respondents breached duty owed to applicant - Found the allegedly improper conduct did not go to any duty owed to applicant - Authority not inclined to view W's conduct as a sending away or repudiatory - Authority found respondent's statement to applicant reflected reality of the situation - Authority did not accept applicant could have regarded employment at an end as steps taken by W to placate applicant - No unjustified constructive dismissal - Authority recorded, although disagreed with applicant's assessment of situation, applicant person of utmost integrity - PENALTY - Applicant claimed respondent failed to provide EA - Authority satisfied Employment Relations Act 2000 did not prescribe penalty for failing to provide "concluded" EA once bargaining ended - Penalty declined - Counterclaim for payment of debt denied - Accounts administrator
Result: Applications dismissed (Dismissal ; Penalty and Counterclaim) ; Costs reserved
Potter v Australian Consolidated Press NZ Ltd
11 Mar 2008, V Campbell, AA 82/08, (8 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by transfer of clients from applicant to co-worker, affecting commission - Also claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by disciplinary process regarding performance - Applicant claimed respondent's Corporate Sales Manager ("S") misled applicant by advising received client complaints when in fact no complaints made - Respondent argued business strategy changed commission structure - Authority found clients transferred due to adjustment of client lists - Found this discussed with applicant - Found removal of clients from commission paid employee was action which could lead to disadvantage - However, found removal of clients to allow applicant opportunity to expand business in other areas did not lead to disadvantage - Applicant conceded income increased despite commission restructure - Authority found no unjustified disadvantage regarding reallocation of clients - Authority found S had genuine concerns about applicant's behaviour - Found when informal approaches did not bring about changes, S implemented formal disciplinary process - Authority did not accept S deceptive or misleading when raised customer complaints with applicant - Found applicant only cast doubt on one of four alleged customer complaints - Found no further disciplinary action taken as result of disciplinary interview with applicant - No unjustified disadvantage - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Five days after respondent advised applicant that no further disciplinary action to be taken, applicant resigned - On receipt of resignation, respondent replied to applicant, attempting to arrange meeting - Authority satisfied respondent did not follow course of conduct with intention of coercing applicant to resign - Found S addressed performance issues in fair and reasonable manner - Found equally no evidence to support argument that respondent breached duty to such degree that applicant had no option but to resign - Found applicant reluctant to follow expected processes and reacted negatively when S raised this - No constructive dismissal - ARREARS OF WAGES - Arrears of commission - Respondent argued applicant's calculations of commission payments included advertisements placed by Australian agents, not applicant - Authority found applicant not entitled to commissions for bookings made by Australian bookers, as specified in updated clause of employment agreement - Found no arrears of commission owing - Found respondent significantly overpaid applicant - Respondent advised would not require applicant repay overpayment - Commercial advertising executive
Result: Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved
Riddell v Stanley Road Ltd
6 Mar 2008, G J Wood, WA 26/08, (8 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Difficult relationship between applicant and newly employed general manager ("B") - Inappropriate sexual liaison between applicant and B heightened tension - B and applicant discussed applicant's further training and assistance through increased staffing - Authority found applicant and B discussed applicant's potential, not guaranteed, promotion to management - Applicant claimed assaulted by B - No formal complaint to respondent - Respondent heard of allegation and made inquiries - B denied allegation - Respondent did not take matter further - Authority found insufficient evidence, such as corroboration, to prove serious allegation in fact occurred - Respondent received complaint from representative of large number of respondent's customers - B held meeting with applicant about complaint - Applicant did not accept complaint and said was overworked - Authority accepted B said something needed to be done to improve sales - Authority did not accept B said intended to reduce staff or applicant was running café into ground - Following day, applicant attempted to collect personal items from café, but was called to B's office instead - Applicant left resignation letter on B's desk, declining to discuss - Applicant took sick leave then raised grievance - Authority found respondent not trying to obtain applicant's resignation, especially as was considering promotion to management - Authority did not accept applicant seriously overworked as timesheets showed worked 44 hours per week - Found meeting to discuss complaint not disciplinary meeting, as no prospect of warning or dismissal - Employer entitled to conduct preliminary investigation into complaints before formal disciplinary procedure invoked - Found appropriate for B to obtain applicant's views about complaint before deciding what action to take, if any - Found although B's approach lacked subtlety, no breach of duty of sufficient seriousness to make it foreseeable to respondent that applicant would not be prepared to work under prevailing conditions - Authority noted not appropriate for Authority to intervene where problem is poor management style, unless behaviour constitutes breach of duty - No unjustified dismissal - ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicant claimed wages unlawfully withheld when resigned - Authority found under employment agreement respondent entitled to deduct one week's pay as applicant did not work out notice period - RECOVERY OF MONIES - Authority found respondent ignored applicant's reasonable requests for return of personal property - Authority ordered respondent to pay approximate dollar value of property withheld - Barista
Result: Application dismissed (dismissal)(arrears of wages) ; Application granted (recovery of monies) ; Recovery of personal property ($350) ; Costs reserved
Roberts v Converting Technology (NZ) Ltd
3 Mar 2008, A Dumbleton, AA 70/08, (9 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Respondent dismissed applicant for treating bonus payment as tax free, misuse of company taxi card, failure to pay creditors, and failure to manage another employees use of company petrol card - Applicant had long association with respondent's owner ("R") - Prior to dismissal parties had amicable relationship - Authority noted employment relationship operated on basis of loose and unwritten arrangements which suited both parties - Authority found R partly responsible for relaxed culture in workplace and applicant's conduct considered in that context - No dispute bonus part of applicant's income and taxable - R argued after 1998 stopped bonus paid net of tax and after 2000 made clear to applicant received bonus after tax - R warned by professional accountants to end tax free bonus payments - Authority found applicant knew from knowledge of business operations tax not being paid and that arrangement of passing off payments as expenses not legitimate even with R's approval - Authority satisfied R fairly concluded applicant had no basis for honestly believing 1998 arrangement approved for use in later years - Found reasonable for respondent to regard applicant's actions as serious misconduct - Found applicant paid herself more remuneration than authorised and as manager failed to ensure tax due properly accounted for in books - Authority also found applicant's delay in paying creditors negligent - However, Authority noted R to share responsibility as allowed applicant considerable discretion to make payments without sufficient control and direction - Found R reasonably concluded applicant failed to supervise another employees use of company petrol card - Authority also found no excuse for applicant using company taxi card for personal use - Authority concluded culture of casual arrangements and lack of attention to financial accountability reason for current circumstances - Authority found trust and confidence required to maintain employment relationship lost on both sides - Dismissal justified - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed suspension unjustified - Authority found failure to consult with applicant prior to suspension unjustified - However, fault for situation giving rise to situation so serious applicant not entitled to remedies - Office manager
Stein v Garrard's (NZ) Ltd
17 Mar 2008, R A Monaghan, AA 94/08, (6 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Applicant's partner ("X") also worked for respondent - Respondent became concerned about X's activities following investigation into decline in business - Following X's resignation respondent identified more serious concerns about X's activities - While applicant on maternity leave respondent asked about knowledge of X's activities - Applicant advised unaware of some activities and unaware respondent did not know of others - Respondent referred several matters to police - On applicant's return to work advised to go home and wait for further contact as respondent unsure of applicant's involvement with X's activities - Respondent then advised applicant not prepared to resume applicant's employment until police enquiry and any legal proceedings completed - Applicant advised respondent would not return to work and raised personal grievance - Authority found suspension breached clause in employment agreement in number of respects - Found breaches so far reaching in effect that respondent's actions repudiatory of employment agreement - Found applicant's indication would not return to work a response to respondent's action - Applicant did not resign, was dismissed - Respondent had not finished investigation, so unable to conclude whether applicant guilty of misconduct - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - No contributory conduct - Applicant obtained employment five weeks after dismissal - Reimbursement of five weeks wages awarded - Authority found relatively little evidence of injury to feelings - Modest award appropriate - $4,000 compensation awarded - ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY AND OTHER MONIES - Respondent acknowledged holiday pay owing - Respondent ordered to pay outstanding holiday pay - Applicant paid road user charges from personal funds instead of respondent's - Applicant agreed to deduction for chainsaw X obtained - Respondent ordered to reimburse applicant $204.93 outstanding - Customer Service Representative
Result: Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($3,365.38) ; Arrears of holiday pay ($3,651.02) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Reimbursement for expenses ($204.93)(Road user charges) ; Costs reserved
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
|
