| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 375/06 |
| Hearing date | 31 Oct 2006 |
| Determination date | 11 December 2006 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | C Bennett ; G Norton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Daske v Tile New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Whether dismissed or resigned - Applicant employed on fixed term agreement to complete project - Fixed term extended when project not completed - Extension not in writing - No evidence to support respondent's claim parties agreed on new end date - Requirements of s66 Employment Relations Act 2000 not met - Permanent employee - Rumour applicant leaving led respondent to ask applicant to confirm it, which she did - Respondent had reasonable basis for believing applicant resigned - Conflict of evidence over what happened next day - Applicant claimed went to work and respondent sent her away - Respondent claimed applicant there to return uniform and asked about holiday pay - Respondent's evidence preferred - Applicant resigned - No personal grievance - Applicant had limited English skills and daughter had attended workplace as volunteer to translate - Length of service 11 months - Showroom assistant |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s66;ERA s66(2);ERA s66(4);ERA s66(6);Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 s27 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 375_06.pdf [pdf 30 KB] |