$20k compo for worker sacked over pregnancy

An Auckland landscape gardener who lost her job because she was pregnant has been awarded almost $20,000 in compensation and lost earnings.

Janene Parlane told her employer, Ron Dykman Ltd, in August 2008 that she was pregnant. She'd been working for the Devonport company for 11 months.

Ms Parlane and her foreman agreed while she was pregnant she wouldn't perform heavy lifting work or chemical spraying.

She then got an email from company director Ron Dykman telling her the foreman had tried to give her suitable work but "clearly the job is very physical and there is very little 'light' work".

In a decision released yesterday, the Employment Relations Authority found Mr Dykman told her she was causing her supervisor problems in finding "light" work. At a meeting Mr Dykman handed her a letter advising of her immediate redundancy.

The authority found they discussed Ms Parlane continuing to pursue an application for paid parental leave.

The following month, in February 2009, she raised a personal grievance for unjustifiable dismissal and a parental leave complaint seeking 14 weeks' lost wages and compensation.

Mr Dykman told the authority a downturn in business meant the company was not trading as profitably and that he consulted with Ms Parlane.

That was rejected by the authority who found no consultation and that Ms Parlane hadn't been made genuinely redundant. It also found the decision wasn't withdrawn and Ms Parlane didn't abandon her employment.

"I conclude that Ms Parlane was simply dismissed because Mr Dykman regarded her as an inconvenience because she could not perform full duties as a result of the pregnancy," authority member Leon Robinson said.

The authority found the purported redundancy was "neither commercially genuine nor carried out fairly and sensitively" and that she was unjustifiably dismissed.

Ron Dykman Limited was ordered to pay her $10,080 in lost wages, $5703.32 for the loss of paid parental leave and $3500 for hurt and humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to her feelings.

Mr Dykman said he would appeal the decision and branded it "a joke, a sick joke".

He said the adjudicator failed to acknowledge Ms Parlane wasn't dismissed or made redundant and had been offered a new position.

"I consider the ERA has made an outrageous ruling that sets our company up and effectively labels our company as abusive and inconsiderate."

The determination effectively slandered him, he said. He maintained a redundancy process was begun and there had been a downturn in business.

"I am completely dissatisfied with ERA. It displays a culture I don't abide by."