| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 5 |
| Hearing date | 19 Dec 2011 |
| Determination date | 12 January 2012 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | G Burness ; D Norris, J Norris |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | McMurdo v Davie Norris Boatbuilders Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Abandonment – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Applicant working when earthquake struck – Respondent allowed employees to leave workplace to check family and friends safe – Respondent claimed told employees respondent hoped to be “up and running again” next week but accepted all employees may not have heard instruction due to chaos after earthquake – Applicant decided to leave Christchurch to ensure safety of applicant’s son – Applicant claimed noticed next week when charged phone batteries respondent had attempted to contact applicant – Authority found applicant made effort to keep employer informed of whereabouts and intentions – Applicant claimed waited to obtain funds for journey back and returned to Christchurch following week – Applicant discovered note in applicant’s time book applicant had abandoned employment – Respondent’s director (“D”) claimed did not know about note in time book as another director (“J”) wrote it, told applicant would talk next week and that applicant should get back to work - Applicant claimed agitated by teasing from co-workers, lost temper when discovered D unavailable and left workplace saying would sue D – D claimed only told applicant did not want to meet at particular time and wanted to get head around applicant’s comment would sue – Authority accepted D’s evidence that J believed applicant had abandoned employment – D claimed invited applicant to return to work but due to earthquake applicant only wanted part time work – Found not practicable for respondent to offer applicant part time position – Found applicant’s need for part time work would have meant applicant’s employment would more likely than not have ended in any event – Found applicant’s employment not treated as abandoned as D, not J, made decisions about staff employment or, alternatively, applicant reinstated when returned to work – Found applicant not unjustifiably dismissed as D never intended to dismiss applicant and D later attempted to bring applicant back to work – No dismissal - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent as treated differently to other employees – Found respondent responsible for J writing in applicant’s time book applicant had abandoned employment – Found fair and reasonable employer would not have reached view that applicant abandoned employment only few days after earthquake - Found when applicant asked D about time book entry fair and reasonable employer would not have told applicant to get back to work and should have made further enquiries – Found applicant disadvantaged by D’s failure to say anything to change applicant’s reasonable belief employment had been treated as abandoned – Disadvantage unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - $4,000 compensation appropriate - Apprentice Boat Builder |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s103A;ERA s124;ERA s160(3) |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_5.pdf [pdf 42 KB] |