Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Chitty v Hills Hats Ltd
24 Sep 2007, D King, AA 295/07, (8 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – No written employment agreement – Applicant claimed made it clear when recruited if he moved to respondent it would have to match or better existing terms – However, respondent only saw previous employment agreement when applicant filed claim – Applicant could not contend respondent would agree to equal or better terms of agreement to which it had never been privy - Applicant believed parties agreed service with former employer would be carried over for purpose of redundancy – Redundancy not mentioned in respondent’s offer of employment – Applicant mistaken to think informal conversations with respondent’s general manager before offer of employment constituted terms of employment – Respondent considered restructuring due to financial position – After consultation, applicant informed position redundant – Applicant claimed respondent failed to follow process outlined to employees at start of restructuring – Process required meetings, but instead conducted via conference calls as applicant in different town to head office – While would have been more humane for applicant to have option of meeting if preferred, failure to meet in person did not vitiate process – Dismissal justified – BREACH OF CONTRACT - Applicant sought reimbursement of office expenses – No agreement for reimbursement of items claimed
Result: Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Kurene and Anor v United Group Rail (NZ) Ltd
10 Aug 2007, D Asher, WA 21A/07, (11 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Summary dismissal - First applicant ("K") dismissed for alleged failure to follow reasonable instruction of supervisor ("S") – During first investigation meeting, respondent conceded K would be reinstated on interim basis - At substantive investigation meeting, respondent conceded dismissal unjustified, and agreed to permanently reinstate K - BREACH OF CONTRACT - Damages - Applicants claimed respondent breached implied term of employment agreement by failing to ensure supervisor (“M”) did not engage in intimidating/threatening conduct towards S as witness - S gave evidence at investigation meetings K complied with instruction – S later claimed M approached him after interim investigation meeting regarding evidence – S informed applicant but asked she keep it confidential - Respondent claimed no loss to K arose out of M's actions - M’s actions perilously close to deliberate threats and intimidation – Authority prepared to accept M did not intend to persuade S to change his evidence - M’s actions would have intimidated any reasonable person – Actions not sanctioned by respondent - Authority satisfied K damaged by actions - Damages appropriate - Applicants' also alleged contempt of court - Actions did not happen within "the face of the Authority" as required by s196 Employment Relations Act 2000 ("ERA") - Actions did not amount to contempt of Authority - No need to adopt referral to Employment Court procedure under s196 - Because of seriousness of M’s actions, Authority referred determination and copies of submissions to Solicitor-General - Remedies - Respondent claimed K contributed to grievance by intending not to follow S's instruction - No contributory conduct found - Authority took into account respondent's concessions and offers of compensation and costs in award of compensation
Result: Applications granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($14,000) ; Breach of contract ($6,000)(Damages) ; Costs reserved
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
