| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 437/08 |
| Hearing date | 3 Sep 2008 |
| Determination date | 23 December 2008 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | M Tolhurst ; A Knowsley |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Davis v Kids Klub Childcare Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer – Authority found employer originally incorrectly cited – Error amended – BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant claimed position offered different from actual position worked – Applicant claimed unconscionable agreement - Respondent advertised full-time childcare position with “chance to train to diploma level” - Applicant too young and had insufficient qualifications for position – Applicant alternatively was offered and accepted casual reliever position – Applicant advised in advance of shifts required – Respondent discussed with applicant possibility of full-time work when applicant reached appropriate age to commence study – Applicant declined – Authority found applicant was offered and accepted casual reliever position – Found applicant declined offer of full-time employment – Found applicant had opportunity to seek advice and agreement witnessed by applicant’s father – Found no unconscionable conduct – No breach – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustified dismissal following altercation with respondent – Altercation occurred when applicant advised respondent unwell to work – Conflict of evidence regarding words said – Applicant claimed text message sent inquiring whether employment terminated after altercation – Respondent claimed text not received – Applicant rostered for following week - Applicant raised dismissal grievance with respondent – Respondent replied denying dismissal and asked applicant whether childcare was what applicant wanted – Applicant failed to work rostered shifts – Applicant dismissed for abandonment – Authority found respondent reasonably concluded abandonment – Found respondent did not receive applicant’s text – Found respondent did not dismiss applicant – Found abandonment – Employers encouraged to make inquiries where employee has not clearly evinced intention to end employment – Employer not obligated to check whether abandonment genuine – Dismissal justified – Authority commented on applicant’s “inappropriate” maligning of respondent without evidential basis – Kitchen Hand |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | E N Ramsbottom Ltd v Chambers [2000] 2 ERNZ 97 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 437_08.pdf [pdf 24 KB] |