Employee reinstated to former position after unjustified demotion…

An employee working as a business relationship manager has fallen victim to workplace bullying after getting into a series of disagreements with her line manager. The manager began to undermine the employee in her dealings with clients and made comments to her personal trainer about her weight. Most importantly, the manager took a leading role in the decision to demote the employee during a restructure. 

The Employment Relations Authority upheld the employee’s personal grievance claim for unjustified disadvantage.

The ERA held that the employer breached its duty of good faith by failing to undertake a satisfactory investigation into the complaints made by the employee. The employer found that the allegations of bullying were unsubstantiated despite evidence that the employee had been subjected to offensive, humiliating and degrading behaviour.

The ERA noted that the employer showed no remorse for its breaches which were deliberate and sustained over a period of 19 days.

The ERA ordered the employer to reinstate the employee into a version of her old job and to pay a $5,000 penalty plus $7,000 compensation to the employee.

Alan Knowsley

Employment Lawyer Wellington

90 day trial clause held invalid…

An employee working as a client services representative has been dismissed in reliance on a 90 day trial period. The employee worked in an open plan office and was routinely seen surfing the internet, taking personal phone calls, chatting to colleagues, and taking lengthy breaks away from her desk. The employer dismissed the employee after he found her asleep in the staff room. The employer was also concerned that the employee was making inappropriate advances on another woman in the office.

The Employment Relations Authority upheld the employee’s personal grievance claim for unjustified dismissal.

The ERA held that the 90 day trial period clause was ineffective as it was ambiguous due to poor drafting. The ERA noted that when there is an ambiguity in a contract that excludes or limits a party’s rights, the ambiguity should be read in favour of the party whose rights are restricted. Consequently, the employee was not excluded from bringing a personal grievance claim.

The ERA held that the employer failed to act as a fair and reasonable employer could in all of the circumstances by failing to carry out an investigation into the employee’s apparent lack of focus at work and her behaviour in relation to her colleague. The employer also failed to ask, and then consider, the employee’s explanation for her conduct before deciding to dismiss her.

The ERA awarded the employee over $5,200 for lost wages plus $8,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings.

Alan Knowsley

Employment Lawyer Wellington

Bus driver fired after giving his wife a free ride…

An employee working as a bus driver has been dismissed after he failed to collect a $2.90 bus fare from his wife, and subsequently did not account for the fare.

The Employment Relations Authority upheld the employee’s personal grievance claim for unjustified dismissal.

The ERA held that the employer failed to act as a fair and reasonable employer could in all of the circumstances by holding the employee to a higher standard because he was involved in union activities and was particularly passionate during collective negotiations for the introduction of a staff family pass.

The ERA found that the employer had thus drawn conclusions that the employee’s failure to take corrective action was intentional rather than a mistake.

The ERA noted that it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee because of their union membership, and awarded the employee over $4,600 for lost wages, over $370 for holiday pay, and over $140 for KiwiSaver contributions. The employee also received $4,800 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to the feelings.

Alan Knowsley

Employment Lawyer Wellington

Employee’s PG claim fails after contractual misunderstanding…

An employee resigned after his employer failed to pay him a loyalty bonus of $10,000. The loyalty bonus was written into the employee’s employment agreement and the terms of an offer letter. The employee was told by one of the employer’s staff that the loyalty bonus was an ongoing annual payment and was not one-off.

The Employment Relations Authority dismissed the employee’s personal grievance claim for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified constructive dismissal.

The ERA held that the employee had no entitlement to be paid an annual loyalty bonus. The ERA found that the employer intended the loyalty bonus to be a one-off payment, and that the clause clearly conveyed that the bonus was one-off.

The ERA noted that the communication to the employee that the bonus would be paid annually was an honest mistake made by one of the employer’s staff.

The ERA thus held that while the employee may have been disadvantaged by not receiving an annual loyalty bonus, the actions of the employer in not making the annual payment was not unjustified.

This case demonstrates how important it is for employees to ensure that they understand the terms of their employment agreements so that they avoid any misunderstandings as to their contractual rights and obligations.

Alan Knowsley

Employment Lawyer Wellington

Employee unjustifiably dismissed after raising sexual harassment allegations…

An employee working at a backpacker’s hostel has been dismissed after accusing his boss of sexually harassing him. The employer sent multiple inappropriate text messages to the employee, but claimed that they were intended for someone else.

The Employment Relations Authority upheld the employee’s personal grievance claim for unjustified dismissal.

The ERA found in favour of the employee’s evidence as the employer’s version of events lacked credibility.

The employee told the ERA that after he was dismissed the employer chucked out his belongings and threw eggs at him, and was verbally and physically abusive.

The ERA found that the employer had also unlawfully deducted money from the employee’s wages when a guest failed to honour their booking.

The ERA issued a $3,000 penalty against the employer, and awarded the employee over $10,900 for lost wages, $14,000 in wage arrears, holiday pay and public holidays worked plus $7,500 compensation.

Alan Knowsley

Employment Lawyer Wellington