| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 427 |
| Hearing date | 11 Aug 2012 |
| Determination date | 30 November 2012 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | A Singh ; S Bakker (in person) |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Goddard v Bakker t/a The Cabbage Tree Cafe Restaurant and Bar |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Abandonment - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found more probable applicant was not dismissed on day respondent manager raised issues with applicant – Found fair and reasonable employer would have contacted applicant to ascertain when applicant returning to work - Found applicant’s absence not resignation but abandonment – Found respondent also had good faith obligation to contact applicant before concluding employment terminated - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES - Remedies not appropriate as applicant abandoned employment after two weeks and applicant not communicative or responsive in accordance with good faith obligation - Service Supervisor and Function and Marketing Assistant |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as service supervisor and function and marketing assistant. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Respondent denied applicant dismissed and claimed applicant left employment voluntarily. Parties disputed what happened on last day of applicant’s employment. Applicant claimed arrived at work and noticed respondent manager (“B”) and other employees hardly spoke to applicant. Applicant claimed told B was leaving at end of day and B told applicant “have to let you go.” Applicant claimed B only said other employees were unhappy but would not tell applicant what problem was. B claimed asked applicant to come to B’s office to discuss couple of things. B claimed told applicant other employees had said applicant was bossy and applicant needed to watch food waste as B had noticed extra food had been made. B claimed told applicant would “leave it at that then” as applicant very emotional and applicant left office before B could finish what was saying. B claimed expected applicant would return to work following day but did not contact applicant when did not return to workplace as believed applicant had chosen to leave employment. Parties’ employment agreement stated respondent would consider applicant had abandoned employment after respondent had made reasonable efforts to contact applicant.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant upset after discussion with B and probable were problems with applicant’s working relationship with two other employees. B’s evidence, that B downstairs waiting for applicant to finish work and did not begin conversation with words “have to let you go,” more probable. More probable applicant was not dismissed on day B raised issues with applicant. Respondent not entitled to just accept applicant had terminated employment. Fair and reasonable employer would have contacted applicant to ascertain when applicant returning to work. Applicant’s absence not resignation but abandonment. Respondent made no attempt to contact applicant after applicant left workplace. Respondent also had good faith obligation to contact applicant before concluding employment terminated. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: Remedies not appropriate as applicant abandoned employment after two weeks and applicant not communicative or responsive in accordance with good faith obligation. |
| Result | Application granted ; Contributory conduct (100%) ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | E N Ramsbottom Ltd v Chambers [2000] 2 ERNZ 97 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_427.pdf [pdf 229 KB] |