The former owners of a Bay of Plenty grocery store have been ordered to pay $17,000 dollars to a worker who was unfairly sacked.
In a ruling, the Employment Relations Authority says Stacey Sisson's bosses at the Nosh store in Mount Maunganui failed to properly investigate the customer complaints they said were the reason she lost her job.
Stacey was 19 at the time she was working at the store, in the deli, in 2016.
The Authority says the store received emailed complaints from customers about a person who was working in the deli serving food with no gloves on.
But there was no evidence the complaints were properly investigated, or that Stacey was given all the information and a chance to respond.
Because of that, a reasonable employer could not come to the conclusion that Stacey was to blame, the Authority says.
"As a result the employer's actions in terminating her employment, in the way it was done and for the supposed reasons it was done, were unjustified."
The company that owned the store, Good Food Trading, went into liquidation last month, but the authority has ruled that the company's owners are personally liable to pay the amount awarded, which covers reimbursement of lost wages, compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, and arrears of wages and holiday pay.
- RNZ
6 comments
Real world ...
Posted on 14-01-2018 12:25 | By MISS ADVENTURE
Who wants to be an employer?
Nosh
Posted on 14-01-2018 15:22 | By sangrae
We hope that the authorities chase down the former owners and make them pay up and not hide behind the liquidation ?
@ Sungrae
Posted on 14-01-2018 16:49 | By MISS ADVENTURE
You are assuming that the ERA decision is "fair" 99% of the time it isnt. Employees can lie and BS unlimited and walk away with a cheque. But dont worry in most cases everyone else is apying for all of this folly as busienss must recover its costs to operate, this is just one more cost to add in to the equation.
Good Food
Posted on 14-01-2018 20:56 | By Ebco
Karma I say.
Stupid
Posted on 14-01-2018 22:11 | By Capt_Kaveman
if she was not using gloves then she is still wrong and if there were like more than a few complaints then the decision is wrong
Certain processes must be followed..
Posted on 15-01-2018 10:25 | By Border Patrol
..by employers who have issues with staff. It doesn't sound like it was in this case, therefore ERA found in employees favour. I don't disagree with the other comments, but it sounds as though the employer was remiss in this case.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.