Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 340/05
Hearing date 19 Apr 2005
Determination date 05 September 2005
Member K J Anderson
Representation M Dumbill ; D Missen
Location Auckland
Parties Presland v Coraliice Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Whether abandonment of employment - Relationship between applicant and respondent's owner deteriorated - On one day, applicant alleged respondent had said he would carry out deliveries so applicant not required back at work - That evening, respondent turned up at applicant's house after drinking some alcohol and there was an altercation - Inconclusive what happened that evening - Whether dismissal that evening - No dismissal and employment continued following day - Following morning respondent again came to applicant's house to inquire why he was not at work - Applicant contacted advocate and did not return to work - Respondent sent letter discussing issue and stating if was not a positive response within 24 hours employment would be terminated - Also sent letter giving seven days to vacate flat - Those letters together constituted dismissal - Respondent's owner not entitled to harass applicant in manner he did - Unjustified dismissal - Were performance issues and not reasonable for applicant to assume respondent had indicated he would carry out deliveries on day in question - Entitled to treat failure to be at work as serious misconduct and address as disciplinary matter, but law required certain procedural requirements - Remedies - Contributory conduct 50 percent
Result Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($6,890 reduced to $3,445)(13 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000 reduced to $1,500) ; Costs reserved
Cases Cited NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: aa 340_05.pdf [pdf 51 KB]