| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 101/02 |
| Determination date | 12 April 2002 |
| Member | WRC Gardiner |
| Representation | D Simpkin ; P Kumar |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Blincow v Seafood & Eat It Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Whether dismissal or abandonment of employment - Absenteeism - Failed to attend work on several occasions - Alleged issued with final warning - Failed to attend after warning given - Impromptu meeting at start of shift - Alleged told no longer needed - Respondent argued had admonished applicant for absence - Claimed applicant had driven off after meeting - Nature of meeting suggested intention to dismiss - Meeting occurred whilst applicant still in car - Clearly suggested did not want attendance in store - Failure to contact after incident to determine whether wanted to continue work - Final warning had been issued - Dismissal without any procedural fairness - Dismissal unjustified - Could not claim dismissal justified if argue abandonment - Remedies - Contributory conduct - Failure to attend work or provide explanation significantly contributed to situation - Acquired new position 2 days after dismissal - Inappropriate to award lost remuneration |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($500) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Holidays Act 1981 s30A(1);ECA s40(2);ECA s41(3);ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Belcher v Ayejay Enterprises Ltd unreported, Finnigan J, 29 July 1997, AEC 81/97;Coca-Cola Amatil (NZ) Ltd v Kaczorowski [1998] 1 ERNZ 264;Country Fare (Christchurch) Ltd v Dixey [1995] 2 ERNZ 372;Gibson v GFW Agri-Products Ltd [1994] 2 ERNZ 525;Northern Clerical etc Union v Emery Customs Brokers NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 634;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of NZ Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |