Key Takeaways
- Auckland Steam ‘N Dry breached good faith in the dismissal process of Shania Mortimer, resulting in a $30,000 award to Mortimer.
- The company failed to provide proper training, support, and feedback to Mortimer, who was new to the job and had only been employed for 15 days.
- The trial period provision in Mortimer’s employment agreement was deemed invalid, making her a permanent full-time employee.
- The company’s actions, including reducing Mortimer’s notice period and failing to provide her with requested employment documentation, were found to be in breach of the employment agreement.
- The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) emphasized the importance of employers acting reasonably and providing proper guidance to employees, particularly during the trial period.
Introduction to the Case
The case of Shania Mortimer vs. Auckland Steam ‘N Dry has brought to light the importance of employers acting reasonably and providing proper guidance to employees, particularly during the trial period. Mortimer was dismissed from her job after only 15 days, and the company’s actions were found to be in breach of the employment agreement. The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) awarded Mortimer more than $30,000, including a $10,000 fee for distress compensation. This case serves as a warning to small businesses and employers in general to act reasonably and provide proper guidance to employees.
The Dismissal Process
The ERA decision laid out the steps taken to dismiss Mortimer, which were found to be unfair and in breach of the employment agreement. On August 16, Graeme Stephens, the owner of Auckland Steam ‘N Dry, emailed Mortimer a letter stating that it "did not make sense to continue with the remainder of the three-month trial" and offered her two weeks’ working notice. However, when Mortimer requested the four-week notice period promised in her employment agreement, Stephens reduced the offer to one week and eventually informed her that her last day of work would be just one working day later. This reduction in notice period was found to be a breach of the employment agreement.
The Trial Period Provision
The trial period provision in Mortimer’s employment agreement was deemed invalid, making her a permanent full-time employee. The wording stating the length of the trial period was inconsistent, and the contract did not state that Mortimer could not take a personal grievance against the company if she were dismissed within the trial period. This meant that Mortimer was entitled to the same rights and protections as any other employee, including the right to pursue a grievance against the company. The ERA found that the company’s actions, including dismissing Mortimer without providing her with proper training or support, were in breach of the employment agreement.
The ERA Decision
The ERA decision emphasized the importance of employers acting reasonably and providing proper guidance to employees, particularly during the trial period. The authority found that Auckland Steam ‘N Dry had failed to provide Mortimer with proper training, support, and feedback, and that the company’s actions were in breach of the employment agreement. The ERA also found that the company had breached its duties of good faith and minimum procedural fairness, and that Mortimer was entitled to compensation for her losses. The decision serves as a warning to small businesses and employers in general to act reasonably and provide proper guidance to employees.
The Outcome
The outcome of the case was a $30,087.30 award to Mortimer, which included wage arrears, interest, lost remuneration, KiwiSaver contributions, holiday pay, legal costs, and a $10,000 fee for distress compensation. If the company did not pay the full amount within 28 days of the decision, Stephens was ordered to pay the amount personally. Mortimer was happy with the ruling, although she was aware that the company had until mid-January to appeal the decision. The case serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of acting reasonably and providing proper guidance to employees, particularly during the trial period.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the case of Shania Mortimer vs. Auckland Steam ‘N Dry highlights the importance of employers acting reasonably and providing proper guidance to employees, particularly during the trial period. The ERA decision emphasizes the need for employers to provide proper training, support, and feedback to employees, and to act in good faith and with minimum procedural fairness. The case serves as a warning to small businesses and employers in general to act reasonably and provide proper guidance to employees, and to be aware of the potential consequences of failing to do so.