| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 181 |
| Hearing date | 16 May 2013 |
| Determination date | 30 August 2013 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | E Bradley ; P Van Keulen |
| Location | Westport |
| Parties | Larsen v Steven and Sharlene Terry, Terry Family Partnership t/a Drifter's Cafe |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive Dismissal - Applicant constructively dismissed - Dismissal unjustified |
| Abstract | Applicant (Ms Larsen) employed by respondent (Steve and Sharlene Terry, Terry Family Partnership t/a Drifters Cafe) in Accommodation and Food Services Sector. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Respondent claimed applicant undercharged friend for food and drink. Applicant claimed undercharged by $1 and applicant intended to pay difference. Respondent went on holiday and left ex-employee (“K”) in charge. Applicant claimed K invited friends to respondent’s caf� for after-hours drinks and K told everyone takings from cafe in bedside table drawer. Following day K noticed money missing. K notified respondent. Respondent suggested either applicant or other employee took money. Respondent made decision to close caf� until back from holiday. Applicant found alternative employment. Applicant claimed alternative employment temporary while caf� closed. Applicant claimed did not know when respondent back from holiday and only discovered caf� open when drove past. Applicant learnt respondent put blackboard outside caf� accusing applicant of being liar and thief. Applicant claimed defamed and publicly humiliated by accusation and unable to return to work for respondent. Applicant claimed constructively dismissed. Respondent claimed stock missing and personal residence damaged. Respondent claimed applicant failed to attend meeting and to report for rostered shift. Respondent claimed applicant resigned or abandoned employment.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant unaware respondent back from holiday. Applicant not advised of shift as no roster prepared. Applicant’s alternative employment temporary and not indicative of abandonment. Applicant intended to continue working for respondent when work available. No evidence respondent left employment prior to accusation. Accusation public and essentially defamed applicant. Similar accusations repeated on Facebook. No evidence applicant responsible for respondent’s loss or theft. Impossible for applicant to return to employ of respondent after accusations. Applicant constructively dismissed. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $8,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland etc Shop Employees etc IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd (1985) ERNZ Sel Cas 136; [1985] 2 NZLR 372;Wellington, Taranaki and Malborough Clerical etc IUOW v Greenwich (t/a Greenwich and Associates Employment Agency and Complete Fitness Centre) (1983) ERNZ Sel Cas 95;Z v A [1993] 2 ERNZ 469 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_181.pdf [pdf 169 KB] |