| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 142/08 |
| Hearing date | 14 Feb 2008 |
| Determination date | 17 April 2008 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | T Kurta ; A Twaddle |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Jamieson v Autoterminal New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant granted one week leave to complete house repairs – Prior to taking leave applicant told administration manager (“C”) second week of leave may be required – Applicant took second week of leave as weather permitted house repairs be finished – Applicant attempted but failed to contact C and general manager (“S”) on last day of approved leave – S attempted but failed to contact applicant when did not arrive at work at end of approved leave period – Applicant met with respondent upon return to work and told actions being investigated as misconduct – Applicant acknowledged did not follow correct procedure – Ashton v PMP Print Limited (CA 104/07) distinguished on facts – Authority found applicant alerted C to possibility may need extra time depending on weather and C had approved – Authority found clause in employment agreement (“EA”) categorised unauthorised absences as less serious misconduct – No evidence applicant provided with any warnings – Found EA contemplated dismissal for serious misconduct be preceded by warnings – No evidence applicant’s absence actually caused any disruption – Found trust and confidence not undermined to degree that justified summary dismissal – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Authority satisfied good reasons not to order reinstatement – Found three months lost wages appropriate given applicant did little to mitigate loss – Authority found applicant senior employee who knew company policy required approval before leave taken – Found applicant could not explain why did not ring during normal work hours when failed to contact respondent – Contributory conduct 25 percent – Inventory manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($8,437.50) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($7,000 reduced to $5,250) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Toll New Zealand Consolidated Ltd v Rowe unreported, 19 December 2007, Shaw J, AC 39A/07;X v Auckland District Health Board [2007] 1 ERNZ 66;Air New Zealand Limited v Hudson [2006] 1 ERNZ 415;Ashton v PMP Limited unreported, 27 August 2007, R Arthur, CA 104/07 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 142_08.pdf [pdf 45 KB] |