| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 102/06 |
| Hearing date | 22 Mar 2006 |
| Determination date | 03 April 2006 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | R Muck ; K Rowell |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Muck v Palace Casino Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Complaint applicant employed to work full time but given part time hours had no basis - Applicant was asked to work shift at different location - Employment agreement specified place of work as Palace Casino Ltd" implying location was anywhere company performed business within inner city Auckland - Different location lacked free parking but applicant benefited from increased hours - Complaint groundless - Applicant given seven days notice hours would be reduced - Applicant not consulted but agreement allowed respondent to vary hours to meet variations in labour requirements - Clause gave respondent considerable power but it had not exceeded ambit of provision - Facilitating return of long serving employee to his normal shift was reasonable ground for changing applicant's hours - Identity of worker could be "labour requirement" - No unjustified action - Applicant and manager disagreed over date applicant could take alternative holiday - Applicant took day off without approval, aware disciplinary action possible - Applicant attended disciplinary meeting to discuss absence but remained mute - Applicant's silence was arguable breach of duty of good faith - Applicant received written warning that applied for six months - Respondent's actions justified - Applicant resigned ten days after unsuccessful mediation and claimed constructively dismissed - Manager expressed preference applicant not resign - Applicant told Authority he resigned because did not get level of settlement he wanted from mediation - Not coerced by respondent as Authority's investigation process available without resigning - Respondent had no responsibility for decision applicant made based on medical advice for problem it was unaware of - Any breaches of duty by respondent were not of sufficient seriousness to make it foreseeable applicant would leave - No constructive dismissal - ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicant sought payment for time spent stocktaking after shift - Manager had told him to complete it during shift - For convenience applicant continued to stocktake in his own time without requirement to be paid - Claim not made out - PENALTY - Applicant not given written agreement until one week into employment - No penalty imposed as agreement's terms were as represented orally - Length of service seven and a half months - Bar manager" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s62(2) |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 102_06.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |