| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 394 |
| Hearing date | 16 Oct 2012 |
| Determination date | 13 November 2012 |
| Member | A Fitzgibbon |
| Representation | M Moncur ; R Giles |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Rowlay v Contract Warehousing Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant agreed to leave employment – Authority found letter handed to applicant at second meeting really notice of termination of employment – Found applicant dismissed – Found applicant’s clear statement at first meeting did not like managing director, did not like job and only remained at respondent because of lack of other available opportunities misconduct destroying basic confidence or trust essential element of employment relationship – Dismissal justified – Dispatch coordinator |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as dispatch coordinator. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant called to meeting (“first meeting”) with respondent’s managing director (“G”) and branch manager (“M”) about report applicant making comments to other staff about applicant’s employment agreement and not wanting to be stuck performing certain task. Respondent claimed at meeting applicant became abusive, stated hated job, hated working for G and wanted redundancy. M claimed applicant used words to effect that if applicant had opportunity to work elsewhere applicant would leave. Applicant claimed told that respondent would lay applicant off after applicant informed respondent had made complaint to Health and Safety Inspector. Applicant claimed loved job. Respondent claimed applicant’s clear wish no longer wanted to work for respondent meant little choice but to come up with proposal to enable applicant to leave. Applicant called to meeting (“second meeting”) on same day and handed letter stating respondent accepted applicant’s request to cease employment with respondent. Respondent claimed applicant agreed to leave employment.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant’s claim loved job inconsistent with recent unsuccessful application for position at another company, applicant’s evidence did not like G’s management style and acceptance had spoken to other staff about G in derogatory terms. Applicant told respondent at first meeting did not like job, did not like working for G and no longer wanted to work at respondent, but did not resign. Letter handed to applicant at second meeting really notice of termination of employment. Applicant dismissed. Applicant’s clear statement did not like G, did not like job and only remained at respondent because of lack of other available opportunities misconduct destroying basic confidence or trust essential element of employment relationship. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(2);ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_394.pdf [pdf 234 KB] |