Bar worker’s dismissal results in claim

Press, 16 June 1982, Page 5

Bar worker’s dismissal results in claim

The Arbitration Court yesterday reserved its decision on a claim for 53366.56 for the alleged unjustified dismissal of a casual barperson at the Leeston Hotel last October. The Canterbury Hotel Workers' Union claimed $2866.56 for 24 weeks loss of wages and $5OO compensatory damages on behalf of Mrs W. G. Jellyman. of Leeston. The claim was against the owners of the hotel. Mr R. E. and Mrs A. C. Fell. Counsel for the respondents (Mr P. J. Rutledge) submitted that Mrs Jellyman had been "rostered off" as a casual worker and not dismissed. As a casual worker. I the question of compensation ! or reimbursement did not I arise. If the Court did not accept that the worker had been "rostered off." evidence had shown that dismissal was justified because of the conduct of her husband and herself in the hotel on an earlier evening. By giving a day's pay in lieu or notice. Mrs Fell had complied with the requirements of a summary dismissal or dismissal with notice. If any award was made to Mrs jellyman. it should amount to’ only a few days pay, said Mr hutledge. The amount claimed by the union was “outlandishly high." The advocate for the Hotel Workers' Union, Mr R. Lingard. argued that Mrs Jellyman had been dismissed. A worker could be "rostered off" if the work he or she had done no longer existed. Mrs Jellyman had done nothing to warrant dismissal

and was being held responsible for her husband s conduct. The amount of the claim was warranted because she had worked at the hotel for two years and a half, had not been able to get another regular job in Leeston. and did not qualify for the unemployment benefit, he said JI