| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 156/08 |
| Hearing date | 15 Apr 2008 |
| Determination date | 28 April 2008 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | J Coyle ; J Meyland |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | McDonald v Specialty Fashion Group New Zealand |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Respondent’s regional manager (“S”) advised applicant by telephone that received complaint about applicant from former co-worker – Authority found S raised allegations applicant not attending to daily banking during telephone call – Found applicant did not give substantive response to daily banking issue – S argued at applicant’s insistence disclosed former co-worker alleged applicant rude to staff and customers – Applicant claimed told S could not work if former employer reemployed by respondent – Authority accepted applicant told S “could stick the job” – S argued understood applicant providing resignation – S argued told applicant accepting resignation and would arrange replacement manager by end of week – Authority found S invited applicant to reconsider overnight but applicant maintained resignation – Applicant claimed S called next day and said “wasn’t looking good” for applicant – Applicant claimed told S “is there anyway around this?” – Applicant invited S to contact co-worker (“C”) who allegedly endorsed applicant – Found S accepted applicant’s invitation to revisit situation when consulted co-workers – S argued C spoke negatively about applicant when consulted – S argued co-workers gave evidence applicant taking extra long breaks and babysat grand daughter in store – S called applicant and said accepted resignation after speaking to co-workers – Applicant told S not leaving – S argued told applicant accepted resignation and refused retraction – S argued told by superiors to have another manager (“M”) obtain applicant’s keys – M requested applicant hand over keys and leave store – Applicant complied with M’s requests without protest – Authority found applicant’s comments to S made in heat of the moment – Authority found unwise for S to fully discuss issues with applicant over telephone – Found S appreciated applicant’s comments made in heat of the moment as sought consideration of decision overnight – Found applicant’s statements evidence that resiled from earlier resignation – Found when S made further inquiries acted consistently with applicant’s intention not to resign – Authority found unreasonable not to permit applicant to resile from resignation – Found M sent applicant away – Found inappropriate and unfair to pursue disciplinary matters over telephone – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Found applicant’s bad language justified 20 percent contributory conduct – Authority declined to award reimbursement of lost wages as applicant took no steps to mitigate losses – Applicant argued unable to leave home and diagnosed with depression as result of dismissal – Authority found $6,400 compensation appropriate – Retail store manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,400) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103(1)(a);ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s124 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 156_08.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |