Costs deter those seeking redress

A Petone lawyer says wrongfully sacked low-income earners struggle for meaningful compensation through the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).

Johanne Greally describes the system as a ‘‘rich man’s playground’’.

Lower Hutt man Christopher Michael Paul does not believe the $19,290 the authority awarded him in February was adequate compensation for a three-year legal battle, ‘‘outrageous allegations’’, ‘‘ exorbitant’’ legal fees, and bad publicity resulting in difficulty finding alternative employment.

Hutt News ran a story last week about the authority ordering food distribution company Stonecold to pay Paul, one of its former drivers, compensation for wrongful accusations leading to his unjustified dismissal in 2011.

Paul’s lawyer Greally, from Petone Law, said the authority ‘‘appears to be becoming a rich man’s playground’’ as lowincome earners such as her client were forced to fork out large legal fees for little expected return.

By the time Paul learnt that possible offers to settle could be made, maybe for about $12,000, his bill for a lawyer just to lodge his personal grievance against his former boss and attend mediation had exceeded $10,000.

That was more than half of any award that he expected at that time, and it was not until much later that he was told he would be entitled to legal aid, which he must pay back, Greally said.

Legal aid lawyers could receive about a quarter of the rate they would get privately.

Few were willing to act for clients because there was no point attempting a claim for $5000 when typical fees were more than $15,000.

‘‘Low-paid workers who cannot expect a high return if several weeks of compensation at the low rate is granted are unable to access the ERA because of the excessive costs of legal representation.’’

The ERA does not grant compensation for future hurt and humiliation, which is often an outcome of publicity surrounding the case.

Cases are listed on the authority’s website and may attract unwanted media attention to false, though potentially embarrassing, allegations.

‘‘For someone seeking to maintain or obtain employment, this is a huge backwards step.

‘‘Potential employers would Google the name and see that the potential employee has had accusations made against him.’’

In Paul’s case, it was alleged that a restaurant manager named Mel phoned his employer with a number of allegations.

He has since been unable to find details of anyone who worked there under that name and suspects any complaint may have been a practical joke by another person.

But as a consequence of proceeding through the ERA, he felt his character had been called into question and his chances of obtaining employment were ‘‘severely reduced’’ because the allegations were purported to have come from a manager of a business he delivered to.

‘‘If an employee is alleged to have behaved incorrectly then the onus should be on the employer to prove that, not on the employee to prove the event never occurred,’’ Greally said.

‘‘No evidence from anyone at the restaurant was called.

‘‘The employer had no witness or written statement from anyone to back the false allegations. The recording the employer said they had was destroyed by the employer some time before the hearing.’’