| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 216/08 |
| Hearing date | 18 Jun 2008 |
| Determination date | 23 June 2008 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | G Lee ; C Newton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Brown v Five Star Pork (NZ) Ltd & Anor |
| Other Parties | The Pork MArket International Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Abandonment - Applicant dismissed after absent from work for three days - Applicant claimed informed operations manager (“OM”) of reasons for absence on at least one of days absent - Applicant received summons to appear at District Court - Applicant absent day before hearing, for unrelated reason, day of hearing, and for three days after hearing - On third day applicant absent OM sent applicant dismissal letter - Applicant claimed did not receive letter - Clause in employment agreement allowed for termination of employment if employee absent for three days without consent or good cause - Authority preferred OM’s evidence that applicant had not contacted respondents - No consent for absences - However, at time of termination, respondents had not established no good cause for absences - Authority found OM’s attempts to establish applicant’s whereabouts not sufficient - Applicant should have been given opportunity to provide explanation before decision to terminate employment made - Second respondent may still have made decision to terminate but Authority could not preclude possibility that it would not have - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Authority did not accept applicant spoke to OM prior to absences or showed him copy of Court summons - Applicant had adequate opportunity to make arrangements for absences and chose not to - Court summons not sole reason for absences; applicant stopped going to work and made no real attempt to return - Applicant’s conduct sufficiently blameworthy that remedies to be reduced by 100 percent - 100 percent contributory conduct - ARREARS - Applicant sought return or reimbursement for personal equipment not returned at end of employment - As personal items could not be identified Authority found money suitable remedy - Second respondent to pay applicant $358 for cost of replacing items - COSTS - Applicant did not seek award of costs as representation provided free of charge, however, sought disbursements - Respondents to pay applicant’s reasonable disbursements in full - Packer and Trimmer |
| Result | Application granted ; Arrears ($358) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant (Quantum to be determined) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s103;ERA s124;ERA s128;ERA s159(2) |
| Cases Cited | E M Ramsbottom Ltd v Chambers [2000] 2 ERNZ 97;Lwin v A Honest International Co Ltd [2003] 1 ERNZ 387 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 216_08.pdf [pdf 40 KB] |