| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Wellington 37 |
| Hearing date | 10 Dec 2013 |
| Determination date | 17 April 2014 |
| Member | T MacKinnon |
| Representation | J Hannam, G Kirk ; M Gundersen |
| Location | New Plymouth |
| Parties | Smith v Stratford Furniture Manufacturing Co Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Abandonment – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged when sent away from employment and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Applicant given home detention necessitating drop in working hours - Respondent maintained applicant’s remuneration at level prior to commencing home detention - Applicant did not always complete required hours and arranged with respondent to top up hours from annual or sick leave - Discussion of arrangements following completion of home detention led to verbal and physical altercation between applicant and respondent - Applicant left workplace and two hours later returned to obtain copy of employment agreement, clear out locker and hand in keys and uniform – ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY – Applicant sought arrears of holiday pay |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant’s claim that respondent “made a pass” during confrontation fanciful attempt to justify applicant’s subsequent violent reaction. Respondent’s version of events more credible. No evidence respondent told applicant to go away and find another job. Applicant left workplace of own volition. No unjustifiable disadvantage. Applicant’s resentment at having to revert to former working hours main cause of explosive encounter. Applicant did not believe dismissed when left workplace and subsequently informed by payroll officer and probation officer that not dismissed. Respondent justified in concluding having reflected on events that applicant had decided to walk out and not return to employment. Applicant’s action in returning to workplace deliberate and clearly signalled intention to end employment. No requirement for respondent to contact applicant and make inquiries of intentions. Respondent’s decision to arrange applicant’s final pay did not constitute dismissal but acknowledgment applicant had terminated employment relationship. No unjustified dismissal.;ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY: No evidence respondent underpaid applicant’s annual holiday entitlement. No arrears of holiday pay. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s65;Holidays Act 2003;Holidays Act 2003 s18;Holidays Act 2003 s75 |
| Cases Cited | E N Ramsbottom Ltd v Chambers [2000] 2 ERNZ 97 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Wellington_37.pdf [pdf 173 KB] |