Compensation Awards 05

Compensation for Humiliation etc Table

(s123(c)(i) ERA)

Employment Court and Employment Relations Authority

1 Jan 2005 – 31 Dec 2005

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 conduct. Also note that Employment Relations Authority awards that have been set aside or altered by the Court are not included in the table. Where there were two successful applicants awarded separate amounts, those amounts are recorded separately.

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 Section, Employment Institutions Information Centre, PO Box 2458, Wellington .

Awards of $15,000 and over

Harbord v Waste Management Ltd unreported, D Asher, 23 February 2005, WA 30/05

The applicant was employed by the respondent as a truck driver. At the end of one working day a co-worker threatened to kill the applicant. The applicant told his supervisor of this threat and the supervisor said he would speak to the co-worker. Similar threats continued over approximately a one month period. Despite assurances, the supervisor did not speak to the co-worker and also did not tell his replacement of this issue before he left to go on an overseas trip. The new supervisor was aware of the harassment but did not do anything about this until approached by the applicant. The applicant resigned before the new supervisor had the opportunity to report back to the applicant after speaking to the co-worker.

The Authority found that the applicant was unjustifiably constructively dismissed. It found that the respondent had failed to act immediately in response to a serious allegation which the respondent accepted existed and failed to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of the applicant while he was at work.

The Authority found that there was compelling evidence of the impact on the applicant of the threats and the respondent’s failure to address the applicant’s concerns. In particular, it was noted that after his dismissal, the applicant was prescribed antidepressants and sleeping tablets. The Authority was satisfied that a significant award of compensation was appropriate and awarded $15,000 compensation as well as reimbursement of lost wages.

Moyle v SGS New Zealand Ltd unreported, P Cheyne, 1 April 2005, CA 42/05

The applicant was employed by the respondent as a branch manager. The applicant’s brother was also employed by the respondent as a coring agent. The applicant was dismissed for serious misconduct following allegations of fraud: It was alleged that the applicant provided coring services but his brother was paid for those services. The applicant explained that he had helped out coring agents for a number of years.

The Authority found no serious misconduct; it also found that the dismissal was unjustified. It found that although the respondent’s investigation disclosed that the applicant’s brother received financial gain from the applicant’s actions, the investigation did not disclose evidence for believing that the applicant had engaged in deception. Rather, it was found that all the respondent could have concluded was that the applicant had been, without deception, providing more assistance to a coring agent than the manager thought was appropriate.

A consultant psychiatrist gave evidence about the applicant’s very distressed state and symptoms indicating a Major Depressive Illness. Similar evidence was given by the applicant and his wife. The Authority accepted the accuracy of the evidence and held that those established effects called for a substantial award of compensation. The Authority awarded the applicant $20,000 compensation plus reimbursement of lost wages. There was no contributory conduct. Reinstatement was ordered.

Staykov v Cap Gemini Ernst & Young New Zealand Ltd unreported, Travis J, 20 April 2005, AC 18/05

The plaintiff was employed as a senior manager. He had worked on a proposal which was unsuccessful and a Line Leader who also worked on the proposal recommended that the plaintiff receive a low rating for his performance review. The plaintiff had been expecting a high rating. Some time later, the plaintiff attended a meeting at which he was given assurances that no redundancies were expected. However, less than a week later, the plaintiff was told to attend a meeting at which he was informed he had been made redundant effective immediately. The plaintiff’s attempts to postpone the meeting and arrange a support person were unsuccessful. Following the meeting he was asked to hand over company property and his network access and access to the building were removed. Whilst the plaintiff was initially told a reference would be given, the reference was later refused.

The Employment Relations Authority found that the redundancy was genuine but procedurally unfair. The plaintiff was awarded compensation of $8,000. The plaintiff brought a non de novo challenge to the Employment Court seeking an increase in remedies. There was no appearance by the defendant in the Employment Court proceedings.

The Court found that the plaintiff’s unchallenged evidence showed that the redundancy was not genuine. It was found that the dismissal probably came about to mask the adverse view that the Line Leader had formed about the plaintiff. In any event, the redundancy was carried out in an unfair manner.

The Court found that the plaintiff’s situation was exacerbated because the defendant did not, contrary to assurances, provide a reference or assist the plaintiff with obtaining alternative work. The dismissal was carried out in a way which conveyed the impression that there was substantial cause and fault on the part of the plaintiff. The Court found that the plaintiff was considerably distressed by the defendant’s conduct towards him and that that affected his self confidence, his health and caused him stress and anguish. He also suffered distress as a result of the job loss and career dislocation. The Court awarded reimbursement of lost wages of 14 weeks plus compensation of $30,000.

Healey v The Mercury Bay Area School Board of Trustees unreported, Shaw J, 11 May 2005, AC 21/05

The Plaintiff was employed as a school counsellor. Over time her relationship with the school principal deteriorated. There were several incidents which contributed to this including: an unresolved and ongoing question of the plaintiff’s job description; a dispute over the plaintiff’s role in playground duties; a perceived lack of support; and two disciplinary actions. The plaintiff resigned alleging it was a constructive dismissal.

The Employment Relations Authority found that the plaintiff had not been constructively dismissed.

The Employment Court found that the plaintiff had been constructively dismissed. It found that there were a number of procedural irregularities in the defendant’s disciplinary processes. It was held that the breaches viewed cumulatively were serious and were of a sort that no responsible and reasonable school employer should have been a party to. They were sufficiently serious to have made it foreseeable to a reasonable employer that the plaintiff would not be able or be prepared to work under those conditions.

The Court awarded the plaintiff $20,000 compensation. There was unchallenged evidence that the plaintiff had become physically and emotionally unwell because of the stresses she had suffered at her work. At the time she left her employment the plaintiff was diagnosed with stress caused by her work environment as well as hypertension and type 2 diabetes which the doctor said had been exacerbated by the stress.

Woud v Department of Corrections [2005] 1 ERNZ 314

The plaintiff was employed as a senior prison officer at the time of his dismissal. He was dismissed for failing to discover an inmate’s suicide earlier than he did.

The Authority found that the dismissal was unjustified solely on the basis that there was disparity of treatment. The plaintiff was awarded compensation of $7,000 reduced to $3,500 for contributory conduct plus reimbursement of lost wages.

In the Employment Court, the plaintiff challenged the Authority’s finding that, disparity aside, the dismissal was justifiable. The Defendant cross challenged the Authority’s finding that there was disparity of treatment and also challenged the remedies awarded.

The Court allowed the plaintiff’s challenge, finding that the plaintiff’s failings were not of such gravity to justify a finding that he was guilty of so great a dereliction of duty as to warrant immediate dismissal. Accordingly, it was found that the dismissal was substantively unjustified. The Court further found that there was pre-determination and disparity of treatment.

The Court awarded reimbursement of lost wages and compensation of $15,000. Reinstatement was ordered. The Court commented that had reinstatement not been awarded, the plaintiff would have been entitled to compensation of $35,000. In assessing remedies, the Court took into account the severe impact on the plaintiff of the unjustified dismissal. It was found that he suffered a loss of confidence, headaches, sleepless nights and feelings of depression. The plaintiff felt humiliated by his summary dismissal and his sense of injustice was exacerbated by the more lenient treatment of others more at fault. In addition, it was found that the suspension of the plaintiff was unnecessary.

Shacham v Wright Spa Pools Ltd unreported, D Asher, 7 June 2005, WA 95/05

The applicant was employed as a salesperson in the respondent’s shop. The position required her to lift weights often in excess of 10kgs. A couple of days after the applicant was offered and accepted the position she found out she was pregnant and should not lift weights in excess of 10kgs. She was also advised not to tell anyone of her pregnancy for three months. A few days after she commenced employment she had to tell the respondent she was pregnant because of a suggestion that her job required her to lift a heavy object. The applicant was told that her employment was terminated because she was unable to fulfil the duties of her position.

The Authority found that the applicant was unjustifiably dismissed. The respondent had mistakenly assumed that the applicant knew she was pregnant at the time she was offered the position. The Authority held that it was not open to the respondent to terminate the applicant’s employment on grounds she was unable to fulfil the duties of her position because the inability to lift was a direct consequence of the applicant’s pregnancy which was a prohibited ground of discrimination. The dismissal was also found to be procedurally unjustified.

The applicant was awarded two weeks lost remuneration and compensation of $15,000. The Authority accepted that the applicant was entitled to significant compensation as a result of the summary nature of her dismissal, including the loss of any opportunity to explore alternatives to dismissal. It was noted that the applicant not only underwent a particularly brutal experience, in light of her pregnancy, but lost any opportunity to return to employment with the respondent at a future date.

Ryan v Commissioner of Police [2005] 1 ERNZ 390

The plaintiff was employed by the respondent as a Police Officer. He was dismissed after pleading guilty to three offences under the Police Regulations 1992. These concerned his alleged non-disclosure of a personal relationship, and two denials that he had given advice about liability for a car accident to an insurance company.

The Employment Court found the plaintiff was not given the opportunity to elect a tribunal hearing after he pleaded guilty. The later refusal of a tribunal hearing when this was requested by the plaintiff was in breach of the defendant’s disciplinary procedures. The plaintiff’s dismissal was unjustified, because it was based on material facts which were in dispute.

There was undisputed evidence that the plaintiff suffered considerable stress that was directly linked to the defendant failing to comply with the Police Regulations 1992. The Court found that the effects of the dismissal were devastating. The plaintiff felt he was treated unfairly, and he was faced with continuing life in a small town where he was well known to those who a short time before he had been penalising with traffic tickets. He faced the additional humiliation of being ridiculed by some of those people. He had been a proud police officer for 16 years, and he felt that his deeply held belief in the integrity of the police had been betrayed. The fact that the plaintiff was successfully reinstated had an impact on the issue of compensation but this had to be weighed against the fact he was out of employment for at least 15 months. The Court said that the degree of hurt and humiliation was at the upper end of the scale, and he was entitled to be compensated to the sum of $15,000.

Ball v New Zealand Dairy Food Ltd unreported, Y Oldfield, 19 July 2005, AA 275/05

The applicant was employed by the respondent as a process operator. During one night shift meal break, the applicant’s supervisor started a fight with the applicant which culminated in the supervisor grabbing the applicant and putting him through a window, causing a cut to the applicant’s shoulder. The respondent conducted a disciplinary inquiry and dismissed the applicant for serious misconduct.

The Authority concluded that the information elicited by the disciplinary process did not provide reasonable grounds for the respondent to conclude that there was misconduct of such seriousness that the applicant’s dismissal was justified in the circumstances. The facts indicated that the applicant reacted to defend himself against persistent bullying. It was not open to a reasonable employer to dismiss him.

In determining compensation, the Authority took into account that the dismissal happened two weeks before Christmas and three weeks before the applicant’s third child was due. The applicant had planned on working extra hours over Christmas at penal rates to meet some expenses associated with these circumstances. The worries caused by the dismissal caused great stress in the applicant’s relationship with his wife. The circumstances entitled the applicant to a substantial award of $15,000.

Monk v New Zealand Lotteries Commission unreported, P Stapp, 1 August 2005, WA 127/05

The applicant was employed by the respondent as a computer operator and was a shift supervisor. She was dismissed for alleged serious misconduct. The reasons given for her dismissal were that she claimed a mileage allowance she was not entitled to; she had used the internet for personal use for at least 11 percent of her work time; and the respondent had lost trust and confidence in her, in part because she had alleged a senior manager was “clearly under the influence of alcohol” in order to explain the senior manager’s different recollection of a particular conversation.

The Authority found that a fair and reasonable employer could not have reached the same conclusions as the respondent had reached. Another employee was treated differently in respect to the mileage allowance issue, and, given there was no written policy about the mileage allowance, entitlement to it could have been the subject of a dispute. There was some doubt the applicant knew of the internet policy, personal use of the internet had been condoned, and the applicant had cast some doubt on the results of the computer use enquiry. Finally, the applicant was entitled to defend herself by providing an explanation why the senior manager might have said the applicant said something that she vehemently denied saying. The dismissal was unjustified. The suspension that occurred during the disciplinary process was also procedurally unjustified and gave rise to an unjustified disadvantage.

The Authority recognised that the culmination of a number of matters leading up to the applicant’s dismissal (including the suspension) might have been upsetting for the applicant. The applicant said her feelings were affected by her dismissal, the loss of her job she had had for 16 years, and the financial impact on her and her partner. The Authority awarded compensation of $15,000.

Hayward v Tairawhiti Polytechnic unreported, Travis J, 3 August 2005, AC 43/05

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a senior salaries officer. The parties had entered a mediated settlement after the plaintiff’s assistant alleged she could no longer work with her. Upon the plaintiff’s return to work after the mediated settlement, she alleged that the defendant failed to address her concerns about an alleged demotion, on the basis that she no longer had responsibility for her assistant. The defendant dismissed the plaintiff, alleging she was guilty of serious misconduct on the grounds of incompatibility with her manager and other members in her team, and failed to deal appropriately with a cap on her salary. The Authority dismissed the plaintiff’s claims of unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal.

The Employment Court found that the loss of managerial responsibility for an assistant was a change which disadvantaged the plaintiff, and an issue which she required to have resolved. This was not done in a timely fashion. The defendant allowed things to deteriorate to a point where the plaintiff was put at risk by a disciplinary process. The repeated failure on the part of the defendant to adequately respond led to the plaintiff’s loss of trust and confidence in her manager, a significant factor in the growing incompatibility. This was an unjustified disadvantage. The dismissal was also unjustified. The Court found that the plaintiff was not substantially responsible for the incompatibility that existed, and that there was a genuine dispute about the interpretation of the employment agreement in relation to the salary cap, which should have been dealt with as a dispute rather than a disciplinary matter.

The Court was satisfied that the plaintiff suffered considerably as a result of both the disadvantage grievance and the unjustified dismissal. In particular, the summary way in which it was carried out prevented her from saying farewell to colleagues of long standing, and it had a marked effect on her both personally and socially after ten years of service. The Court commented that, were it not for the plaintiff’s ability to mitigate some of her loss by obtaining employment with the assistance of her husband, the award might well have been considerably higher. The plaintiff received $5,000 for the unjustified disadvantage, and $25,000 for the unjustified dismissal.

Tararo v Toll NZ Consolidated Holdings Ltd unreported, D Asher, 3 August 2005, WA 128/05

The applicant was employed by the respondent as a cashier and barman on the ferries that went between Picton and Wellington. A passenger informed the respondent that she had observed the applicant stealing money by not ringing up purchases correctly and putting a $20 note in his pocket. The applicant denied that he had not rung up purchases correctly, but agreed he had put money into his pocket for the purpose of obtaining coin change. The respondent preferred the passenger’s account to the applicant’s, and summarily dismissed the applicant for serious misconduct.

The Authority found that the respondent failed to undertake a full and fair investigation. A fair employer could not have concluded that serious misconduct had occurred without giving the till record (which did not appear to support the passenger’s account) sufficient scrutiny, and without giving the applicant an opportunity to make submissions in respect of that record. The respondent also failed to take proper account of the applicant’s explanations of why the passenger may have misinterpreted his actions. The dismissal was unjustified.

The Authority accepted the submission that the applicant was entitled to significant compensation as a consequence of the impact on him of his unjustified dismissal. However, the effect of the dismissal was substantially mitigated by his reinstatement. The amount of $15,000 was adequate compensation.

Daniels v Maori Television Service unreported, A Dumbleton, 29 August 2005, AA 330/05

The applicant was employed by the respondent to present the television news programme Te Kaea. She attended a protest outside her hours of employment to oppose the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. When her manager learned of this, she instructed the applicant not to take part in “protest meetings” because, as a recognisable “face” of the respondent, she should not be seen actively involved in news-making events. Another issue was that Te Kaea’s presenting format was changed from two presenters to one, without consulting the applicant. The applicant’s manager also made remarks to another employee, which were deeply offensive to the applicant and discriminatory of her and her partner (a director of the respondent).

The Authority concluded that the respondent did not act fairly and reasonably in its bald and absolute prohibition against protesting by the applicant. This was an unjustified disadvantage. The instruction also constituted discrimination against the applicant in her employment, and breached the applicant’s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Authority also concluded that the respondent’s failure to observe a statutory duty to be active and constructive and responsive and communicative in respect of the format change caused an unjustified disadvantage. Further, the comments the applicant’s manager made gave rise to another personal grievance. The remarks strongly denigrated the applicant and her partner with regard to their sexual orientation, family status, intelligence, honesty and integrity. The respondent’s failure to observe the values of kaupapa Maori, as the respondent had expressly undertaken to do, also added to the applicant’s sense of grievance.

The Authority was satisfied that the applicant had suffered shame, embarrassment, humiliation, general distress and anxiety as a result of the respondent’s conduct. The humiliation had been deep, prolonged and public. The manager’s remarks caused the applicant significant distress, and there were newspaper articles about the remarks and other aspects of the case. Some of the conduct of the respondent while taking part in the Authority’s investigation caused the applicant unnecessary further grief. The Authority considered the sum of $16,000 was appropriate to compensate for the accumulated harm caused to the applicant.

Hjorth v Onesource Ltd unreported, Shaw J, 2 September 2005, AC 47/05

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a sales representative. During a heated discussion, the plaintiff’s line manager swore at the plaintiff and insulted him. The plaintiff spoke to the general manager about resigning. The general manager proposed options for the plaintiff’s return to work, but none were acceptable to the plaintiff because they all involved him reporting at some stage to the line manager. After the defendant refused to negotiate an exit package, the plaintiff resigned. The Authority found that the plaintiff’s resignation was an unjustified constructive dismissal, and awarded the plaintiff $10,000 for hurt and humiliation. The plaintiff challenged the remedies award in the Court.

The Court concluded that the plaintiff suffered significantly from the circumstances under which he left his employment. The line manager’s treatment humiliated the plaintiff, and this was reinforced by his discovery during the Authority’s investigation that the line manager had written an insulting email to him (which the defendant deleted before it was received by the plaintiff). The humiliation was also reinforced by his sense of shame and helplessness – he went from being a reasonably high flyer in his profession with high esteem, to somebody who was dependent on the assistance of others to get work and money. While the Court said it was not the worst case, it was severe and lasted for a number of difficult months. The plaintiff was entitled to an award of $15,000 compensation.

Jones v George Western Foods Ltd unreported, P Cheyne, 6 September 2005, CA 31A/05

The applicant was employed by the respondent. After injuring his back at work he was certified by his doctor as fit for light duties only for 14 days, then unfit for 14 days, then fit again for light duties for ten weeks. He had surgical treatment for the back injury, and after six weeks returned to work, subject to a minor restriction. Before the surgery, the respondent had had private investigators keep the applicant under surveillance. The private investigators reported to the respondent that while the applicant was not at work he was able to perform strenuous activities on his farm without apparent discomfort. The respondent dismissed the applicant for serious misconduct.

The Authority found that in the circumstances, no fair and reasonable employer would find any misconduct. By the date of the disciplinary investigation, it was beyond question that the applicant had suffered a serious back injury which required surgery. The respondent had no grounds for concluding that the applicant’s non-work activities could have affected the employment relationship.

The Authority found that the applicant had suffered significant distress, humiliation and injured feelings as a result of his dismissal. The respondent gave its private investigator’s report to ACC so the applicant blamed the respondent for ACC’s subsequent investigation. The applicant had worked in his employment for 13 years so it was a bitter blow to lose it and even worse in the circumstances created by the respondent’s unfounded suspicions. The Authority awarded compensation of $15,000.

Nelson v New Zealand Conference Association as Trustee for Sanitarium Health Food Company unreported, D King, 6 October 2005, AA 363A/05

The applicant was employed by the respondent as the Flake Biscuit Process Manager. A padlock was found in a packet of Weetbix. When this was brought to the applicant’s attention by a Process Controller (“E”), he treated it as being primarily an occupational safety and health issue. It was the job of the process controllers to fill out the metal detector log book and E wrote in the metal detector log book “no metal” and did not perform a Quality Impact Report. Two months later, the padlock incident was brought to the respondent’s attention. E’s notation in the logbook (and whether anyone told him to write it) formed the basis of much of the subsequent investigation carried out by the respondent. The applicant was dismissed for serious misconduct.

The respondent did not dispute that it did not follow the interview/investigation procedure set out in the parties’ employment agreement. The respondent did not advise the applicant of the specific allegations against him. The Authority could not see how the respondent could have reasonably drawn the conclusions it did, and found the manner of the interviews was indicative of predetermination. A document came to light which indicated the respondent’s intention to terminate the applicant’s employment using “the disciplinary route over time” following an attempt to the make the applicant redundant in 2000. The procedural defects were so severe as to render the dismissal nugatory. The Authority also found that if there were failings they were certainly not of such gravity to justify summary dismissal.

The Authority found that the applicant suffered extensively as the result of dismissal. His church connections were inextricably bound up with his employment, and he had to face the consequences of his dismissal each week when attending church. He had had forty years unblemished employment. These factors called for a high award of $25,000.

Reti v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd unreported, Y Oldfield, 12 December 2005, AA 479/05

The applicant was employed by the respondent as a leading hand at one of its mills. The respondent received complaints about the applicant’s behaviour. After the respondent interviewed members of the applicant’s team, it told the applicant that there were allegations of bullying and suspended her. The Human Resources Manager engaged an independent workplace bullying specialist to assess the complaints. The Specialist conducted interviews and wrote a report. The applicant was summarily dismissed for serious misconduct.

The Authority concluded that the respondent’s inquiry was flawed in a number of respects. There was predetermination by the HR Manager. The report itself was flawed, and only limited parts of the report should have been taken into consideration by the respondent. The procedural flaws made it impossible for the respondent to establish that serious misconduct had occurred. The dismissal was unjustified.

The Authority noted that the applicant was 50 when she was dismissed, and had lived, worked and raised her family in the same small town for most of her adult life. Both the fact of the dismissal and the nature of the allegations against her left her feeling so humiliated and depressed that she was not able to cope with normal daily tasks or show her face in the local community. She was placed on a sickness benefit and did not work again until almost a year after her dismissal. The Authority found that the dismissal nearly broke her. The hurt and humiliation were aggravated by the fact that she was already struggling to cope with her role, by the lengthy and traumatic suspension, and by the manner of her dismissal. The matter called for an award at the upper end of the usual range, and the Authority awarded $25,000.

A v The Attorney-General in respect of The Chief Executive Officer of The Child Youth & Family Services unreported, P Stapp, 22 December 2005, WA 196/05

The applicant was employed by the respondent as a social worker. During a period of study leave the applicant became ill. She returned to work but had further periods of sick leave following surgery. She provided the respondent with several medical certificates on various dates. One certificate (“the first certificate”) stated that although the applicant was well enough to return to work, her work should initially not involve front-line work. The applicant was never removed from front-line social work. A later certificate (“the second certificate”) indicated the existence of stress-related issues for the first time. There was a 10 day delay in the respondent responding to this medical certificate. After a further period of sick leave, the applicant never returned to work. Eventually she was medically retired from work as a social worker. She did not challenge the termination of her employment, but alleged various unjustified disadvantage grievances.

The Authority found that the respondent’s unjustified actions of not acting on the first certificate and the delay in responding to the second certificate affected the applicant’s employment to her disadvantage. Given the medical advice, a fair and reasonable employer could be expected to take up the matter immediately.

The Authority took into account the relatively short time between the two unjustified disadvantages occurring and the applicant leaving work for the last time. The Authority accepted that there was an impact on the applicant by the respondent’s failure. It also accepted the applicant felt that her attempts to talk about her situation to the respondent fell on deaf ears. The Authority awarded $15,000 as compensation.

Challenges to the Employment Court where the Employment Relations Authority awarded compensation*

Nilson-Reid v Attorney-General in respect of the Director-General of the Department of Conservation

unreported, Travis J, 7 March 2005, CC 4/05 – The Authority awarded $5,000 for a successful unjustified disadvantage claim. (The unjustified dismissal claim was dismissed.) The Employment Court dismissed the challenge brought by the employee but reduced the remedies to $3,000 to take into account that the Court had only upheld one of the two disadvantage grievances identified by the Authority. (Authority determination: P Montgomery, 5 December 2003, CA 130/05. Included in 2003 Compensation Table.)

Copy Solutions Ltd v Cotterell

unreported, Travis J, 22 March 2005, AC 12/05 – The Authority awarded $10,000 compensation to the employee. The employer’s challenge to the Authority’s determination was successful. The Authority’s compensation award was therefore set aside. (Authority determination: D King, 29 September 2003, AA 293/03. Included in 2003 Compensation Table.)

Staykov v Cap Gemini Ernst & Young New Zealand Ltd

unreported, Travis J, 20 April 2005, AC 18/05 – The Authority awarded $8,000 compensation to the employee. The employee brought a non de novo challenge to the Employment Court to the amount of remedies awarded. The Court awarded $30,000 compensation. (Authority determination: K Anderson, 31 Jul 2003, AA 234/03. Included in 2003 Compensation Table.)

Woud v Department of Corrections

unreported, Goddard CJ, 16 May 2005, AC 24/05 – The Authority awarded compensation of $7,000 reduced to $3,500. The plaintiff’s challenge in the Employment Court was successful and the plaintiff was awarded compensation of $15,000. (Authority determination: A Dumbleton, 16 December 2003, AA 377/03. Included in 2003 Compensation Table.)

Orix New Zealand Ltd v Gurney

unreported, Goddard CJ, 17 May 2005, WC 12/05 – The Authority awarded $8,000 compensation. The employer’s challenge was dismissed. The employee sought a higher award of remedies. The Employment Court awarded the employee compensation of $13,000 reduced to $11,700 for contributory conduct. (Authority determination: P Stapp, 13 September 2004, WA 122/04. Included in 2004 Compensation Table.)

Cherrington v New Zealand Post Ltd

unreported, Shaw J, 28 June 2005, AC 32/05 – The Authority found that the plaintiff’s dismissal was justified. The Employment Court allowed the employee’s challenge and awarded compensation of $10,000 reduced to $7,500 for contributory conduct. (Authority determination: L Robinson, 22 June 2004, AA 212/04. Included in 2004 Compensation Table.)

Hjorth v Onesource Ltd

unreported, Shaw J, 2 September 2005, AC 47/05 – The Authority awarded $10,000 compensation for a successful unjustified dismissal claim. The Employment Court granted the employee’s cross-challenge as to remedies and increased the amount of compensation to $15,000. (Authority determination: L Robinson, 13 September 2004, AA 292/04. Included in 2004 Compensation Table.)

*This section provides short summaries of challenges to the Court where the Authority awarded compensation. This recognises the fact that an amount of compensation previously awarded by the Authority, and previously included in a compensation table, has been altered by the decision of the Court.