| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 356 |
| Hearing date | 14 Sep 2012 |
| Determination date | 11 October 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | M Blackman (in person) ; P Swarbrick |
| Location | Whangarei |
| Parties | Blackman v Kiwi Care Preschool |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found applicant not dismissed during first meeting – Found video conference meeting characterised by applicant’s reluctance to engage calmly and rationally and applicant made number of observations illustrating contempt for respondent – Found applicant made clear at video conference meeting not prepared to engage in working through issues and presented rigid stance dismissed previous day – Found open to fair and reasonable employer to conclude applicant lost trust and confidence in respondent to such extent only reasonable course of action to bring employment to end – Found likely applicant mistaken about extent of applicant’s behaviour during first meeting and respondent entitled to conclude no longer had trust and confidence in applicant to behave appropriately in workplace – Dismissal justified |
| Abstract | Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant asked to attend meeting with manager (“O”) where O proposed dramatic reduction in applicant’s work hours and significant change to applicant’s days of work. Applicant became angry. Applicant accepted swore but denied swore at O, swore in presence of children, slammed doors or made such a rumpus anxieties expressed on behalf of children. O denied gave applicant ultimatum to accept changes or leave. Applicant claimed dismissed during meeting. After meeting O referred matters to respondent’s managing director (“A”). Following day meeting held by video conference between applicant, O, A and respondent’s operations manager. Respondent claimed clear applicant had lost trust and confidence in respondent and not prepared to work through outstanding issues. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed wrong for A to seek to settle problem during video conference meeting by making payment to applicant.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Unlikely O had chance to issue ultimatum to applicant during first meeting as genuinely taken aback by ferocity of applicant’s response to O’s proposal. O would not have involved A if applicant’s employment already terminated during meeting. Applicant not dismissed during first meeting. Video conference meeting not intended to be disciplinary meeting but to repair relationship. Nothing improper about A attempting to settle employment relationship problem. Video conference meeting characterised by applicant’s reluctance to engage calmly and rationally and applicant made number of observations illustrating contempt for respondent. Applicant made clear at video conference meeting not prepared to engage in working through issues and presented rigid stance dismissed previous day. Open to fair and reasonable employer to conclude applicant lost trust and confidence in respondent to such extent only reasonable course of action to bring employment to end. Likely applicant mistaken about extent of applicant’s behaviour during first meeting and respondent entitled to conclude no longer had trust and confidence in applicant to behave appropriately in workplace. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (2011) 9 NZELC 94,015 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_356.pdf [pdf 159 KB] |