| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 10/01 |
| Determination date | 19 February 2001 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | C Bennett ; Toomey in person |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Schneider v Watts, Reid & Toomey t/a Abbotts Way & Glendowie St Heliers Veterinary Clinics |
| Summary | ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Employed on 3 month trial period - Failure to provide formal reviews - Given list of concerns - One month's notice given by applicant - Alleged serious misconduct - Dismissed at end of 3 months - Dismissal unjustified - Applicant entitled to fair treatment and an opportunity to meet respondent's standards - No serious misconduct - Remainder of notice due - Veterinarian |
| Abstract | This was a successful application for arrears of wages and holiday pay investigated by the Employment Relations Authority.;The applicant was employed by the respondent on a 3 month trial basis. As part of the trial period the respondent was to conduct formal reviews at one month and at the end of 3 months. The applicant agreed to step aside if someone with more experience applied for the position.;No formal reviews took place. Towards the end of the 3 months the applicant was given a letter outlining the respondent's concerns with her conduct. After a meeting to discuss those concerns the applicant resigned, giving one months notice.;During this notice period the applicant was given an animal to examine before it was neutered. The applicant sent the owner away, informing owner that the cat was too young to be neutered. This was against the policy of the clinic. The respondent considered this incident amounted to serious misconduct and asked the applicant to leave immediately.;HELD (1) By keeping silent the respondent had accepted the applicant's resignation and the terms stated. The applicant was therefore entitled to the wages and holiday pay owing for the remainder of the notice.;(2) Although the applicant had resigned and was working out her notice when told to leave, she had been dismissed. The Employment Relations Authority was entitled to determine whether the dismissal was unjustified despite the fact that it was not included in the applicant's claim. While the respondent was entitled to determine the standards of practice the applicant was entitled to be treated fairly and given an opportunity to meet those standards.;(3) The applicant's actions were the result of a lack of understanding of what was expected of her, but did not amount to serious misconduct. She was disadvantaged by the failure to provide the formal reviews. The respondent was aware that the applicant was a graduate and was in need of good supervision and support. It was not appropriate to make an award for unjustified dismissal because the applicant had not included it in her claim. |
| Result | Application granted ; Arrears of wages ($1,349.57) ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Statutes | ERA s124;ERA s160(3) |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |