| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Respondent altered roster, significantly changing applicant’s shift rotation, without informing applicant – New roster did not suit applicant - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by roster change - Claimed employed in permanent position at specific location and so did not have to accept changes – Authority found employment agreement said, and custom in industry confirmed, applicant permanent security guard for respondent but shift patterns and locations of work able to be altered – However, found change to shift pattern sudden and no prior notification – Respondent admitted changes communicated inadequately - Authority satisfied applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by way respondent managed roster change - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustifiably constructively dismissed by respondent unilaterally changing shift pattern leaving him no opportunity but to consider employment at end – Respondent argued applicant abandoned employment after respondent made every effort to retain him – Applicant rejected other options offered by respondent – Authority found that by time applicant said would work new roster for old shift, respondent legitimately found replacement – Found respondent did everything could reasonably have done to meet applicant’s needs when original shift roster no longer possible – Found applicant resistant to change and erroneously thought shift was permanent – Applicant employed as security guard and nothing more with no set duties or location – Respondent entitled to move applicant as needs of business dictated – Respondent went out of way to retain applicant – Applicant abandoned employment – Not constructively dismissed - Remedies – When respondent breached obligations by failing to alert applicant of upcoming roster change, conceded error and did everything in power to rectify situation – Found applicant’s behaviour contributed to breakdown in employment relationship to greatest extent possible – Applicant not cooperative and fixed on belief promised full time job on shift roster that suited him, which was not true legal position – 100 percent contributory conduct – No remedies appropriate – Security Guard |