| Summary |
DISPUTE – Applicant resigned, tendering three month notice period – Respondent declined notice period, offering one month notice period – Applicant declined shortened notice period – Respondent stated employment to end one week from date of resignation letter, alleging company’s normal practice was one week notice period – Applicant claimed entitled to balance of notice period and alleged was unjustifiably dismissed – Determination only determined principal issue of notice period – No written employment agreement nor evidence of agreed required period of notice upon termination of employment relationship – Applicant cited principle in Coca Cola Amatil (NZ) Ltd v Kaczorowski [1998] 1 ERNZ 264 that giving of long period of notice generally amounts to affirmation of contract – Authority found one matter for employer to suggest preference for shorter notice period than that tendered, but another to enforce that notice period if employee declined – Found genesis of problem was respondent’s failure to comply with legal requirement to provide employment agreement setting out agreed notice provisions – Found in absence of agreed period of notice, applicant entitled to submit three month notice period – At that point respondent could determine, in consultation with applicant, whether all or part of notice period was required to be worked – Parties directed to mediation to resolve remaining issues - Area Manager |