| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 32/07 |
| Hearing date | 13 Feb 2007 |
| Determination date | 01 March 2007 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | J Angus-Burney ; D Marshall |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Stevens v Unibag Packaging Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Whether dismissed or abandoned employment – Constructive dismissal - Applicant 16 years old – Raised concerns with union about treatment by supervisor, and pay - Met with manager, conversation focused on pay concerns – Insulted by supervisor on return from meeting – Applicant left work early once supervisor gone – Authority considered left because had enough of supervisor’s treatment and upset pay rate not changing – Applicant absent two days without contact – Away longer than permitted by abandonment clause in employment agreement – On return to work, given letter terminating employment – Applicant lacked good cause to absent himself without notification – Claimed no access to phone – While correct, not good cause for failure to contact respondent – Although applicant subject to unacceptable treatment, could have taken up matter with manager – Fact prepared to wait until supervisor left showed could have dealt with concerns while remaining at work – Lwin v A Honest International Co Ltd (cited below) distinguished as applicant had abandonment clause in agreement – Respondent under no obligation to contact applicant – Employment abandoned - Supervisor’s behaviour factor in applicant leaving – However, main reason was pay - As no breach of contract regarding pay, no constructive dismissal – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Supervisor’s behaviour disadvantaged applicant – Part of reason subsequently lost job - Applicant felt unsafe and bad about whole working experience, serious matter for young worker trying to make ends meet for family while attending school – Remedies - Were it not for contractual abandonment provision would have reinstated applicant – Should respondent offer reinstatement would seem appropriate no remedy for disadvantage should apply in addition, especially as respondent paid wages until investigation meeting – Recommendation respondent review staff supervision policies and training - Length of service 11 weeks – Packer |
| Result | Application dismissed (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application granted (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Recommendation ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A;ERA s122;ERA s123(ca) |
| Cases Cited | EN Ramsbottom Ltd v Chambers [2000] 2 ERNZ 97;Lwin v A Honest International Co Ltd [2003] 1 ERNZ 387;Pitolua v Auckland City Council Municipal Abattoir [1992] 1 ERNZ 693 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 32_07.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |