| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 216 |
| Hearing date | 18 Oct 2011 |
| Determination date | 25 June 2012 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | A Singh ; A Hope |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Timu v Te Runanaga O Kirikiriroa Trust Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found applicant had difficulty maintaining appropriate boundaries with clients and fair and reasonable for respondent to request applicant to work in another area of respondent until received training – Found applicant effectively resigned when refused to work in another area - No dismissal - Kai Mahi (Support Worker) |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as kai mahi (support worker). Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Respondent services included residential treatment for young people. Parties’ employment agreement (“EA”) stated applicant casual employee. Applicant’s manager also applicant’s stepfather (“C”). C claimed had received complaints from parents of respondent’s clients applicant had given clients cigarettes. Applicant denied allegation and claimed some clients had stolen applicant’s cigarettes and had followed respondent incident process. Applicant claimed C said applicant now required to work in another area at respondent. Applicant claimed when said could not work in another area as needed to bring children to workplace, dismissed by C. Respondent claimed applicant casual employee and employment ended when applicant refused offer of alternative employment.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant had reasonable expectation would be offered regular work. Applicant employed on part time basis for fixed term as respondent relied on government funding. Applicant had difficulty maintaining appropriate boundaries with clients and fair and reasonable for respondent to request applicant to work in another area until received training. Although better if C had not been involved in process as applicant’s family member, C’s involvement did not cause unfairness. Applicant effectively resigned when refused to work in another area. No dismissal. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Barnes v Whangarei Returned Services Association (Inc) [1997] ERNZ 626;Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd [2009] ERNZ 225 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_216.pdf [pdf 184 KB] |