| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 44 |
| Hearing date | 6 Dec 2011 |
| Determination date | 02 February 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | R Goudswaard ; V Campbell, K McLuskie |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Goudswaard v Agriterra Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Motorbike suffered significant damage when applicant was riding it and not immediately repaired – Respondent claimed applicant demanded farm motorbike be repaired as needed motorbike to commute to and from work – Respondent claimed told applicant use of motorbike privilege which provoked applicant’s resignation – Respondent prepared letter accepting verbal resignation which all parties signed – Respondent prepared letter stating motorbike only to be used on applicant’s commute to and from work – Letter signed by all parties – Respondent claimed had to spend more time supervising applicant’s work following resignation – Respondent claimed applicant shouted and swore and walked off job – Respondent gave applicant seven days’ notice and confirmed applicant’s immediate resignation – Respondent claimed applicant swore and threw farm boots on lawn – Applicant appointed father as spokesperson and never returned to work – Authority found no written employment agreement (“EA”) completed and therefore did not apply – Authority preferred respondent’s evidence – Found applicant resigned employment – Found no pressure from respondent to resign and respondent’s actions did not precipitate applicant’s determination to leave employment – Found initial altercation about motorbike was not abuse of respondent’s right to set rules around use of property – ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY – Applicant claimed unpaid holiday pay – Applicant claimed owed holiday pay for period up to when applicant initially said would work up to – Found applicant not entitled to receive benefit of holiday pay when not providing work – Found no entitlement to holiday pay – COUNTERCLAIM – RECOVERY OF MONIES – Respondent sought sum for damage done to motorbike and compensation for notice period that applicant did not work – Found respondent could not rely on EA to enforce compensation for notice week that applicant did not work because EA never executed – Respondent sought $800 contribution to $1,199 total cost of repairs to motorbike – Found counterclaim relied on EA which gave respondent right to deduct moneys owed by applicant to repair respondent’s equipment – Found respondent able to recover from applicant if could prove applicant breached implied terms of EA – Found no evidence that applicant riding motorbike without authority when crashed – Found no award against applicant – COSTS – Costs to lie where they fall – Farm Worker |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_44.pdf [pdf 34 KB] |