| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 135/06 |
| Hearing date | 8 Jun 2006 |
| Determination date | 07 September 2006 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | J Guthrie ; S Knowles & D Tuato'o |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | McLennan v Arthur Barnett Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Alleged employment summarily terminated by phone message left by manager - Respondent claimed message did not amount to dismissal - Expired written employment agreement continued to apply - Applicant engaged as either part-time or flexi-time employee, not casual - Conflict developed between applicant and new employee (D") - No reason to be critical of way respondent dealt with conflict - Authority did not accept applicant's claim respondent wanted her gone having appointed D - Applicant's request for leave without pay granted but plans changed and available to work - Respondent entitled to stick to original arrangement whether or not replacement worker organised - Applicant received message after being absent two months on leave and then sick - Message stated manager would let her know if work available - Manager claimed also said applicant should contact him when knew university timetable - Applicant argued while no actual words of dismissal, termination should be inferred from circumstances - Authority did not accept message amounted to termination of employment at respondent's initiative - On balance, manager's evidence of message preferred - Applicant to initiate discussion so parties could agree schedule of hours - Applicant's belief dismissed communicated to respondent - Reply stated applicant still employed but wrongly described her as casual employee - Prompt acceptance of respondent's invitation for further discussion could have easily sorted mistaken label - Parties needed to discuss applicant's availability for work in new year, as mentioned before applicant went on leave - No dismissal - Even if grievance, little scope for substantial remedies - Applicant's stress related illness not attributed to any wrongful action by respondent and stress claim explicitly not pursued - ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant not paid for four statutory holidays while on annual leave because of mistaken view of nature of employment - Statutory days fell on otherwise working days for applicant - Arrears due and owing - Length of service seven years - Shop employee" |
| Result | Application dismissed (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application granted (Arrears of holiday pay) ; Arrears of holiday pay (4 days)(Quantum to be determined by parties) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A;Holidays Act 2003 |
| Cases Cited | Wellington, Taranaki and Marlborough Clerical etc IUOW v Greenwich (t/a;Greenwich and Associates Employment Agency and Complete Fitness Centre) [1983];ACJ 965 ; ERNZ Sel Cas 95 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 135_06.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |