Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 26/09
Determination date 29 January 2009
Member D King
Representation P Cile ; K Jones
Location Auckland
Parties Schmidt v Webster Group Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Abandonment - Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed without notice – Respondent claimed no dismissal – Respondent under financial difficulties following decline of business – Respondent held first meeting with applicant regarding company’s financial situation and future consequences – No improvements in financial situation and second meeting called – Respondent told applicant of staff reductions, to look out for other jobs and suggested applicant obtain representation – Respondent lost main contract and third meeting held – Respondent raised only possibility of redundancy and offered opportunity for applicant to arrange representation – Applicant claimed position terminated and left workplace without returning – Respondent received letter from applicant’s representative (“C”) claiming unjustified dismissal – Respondent replied applicant not dismissed, asked whether applicant was returning, outlined events of third meeting – No response – Respondent paid applicant’s final pay including one month’s notice when clear applicant not returning - Authority found no dismissal and redundancy substantively justified – Found applicant knew company’s financial situation, respondent gave all relevant information and opportunity for representation given - Found applicant pre-empted redundancy consultations by abandoning employment – Found likely applicant would have been offered a part-time position and unfortunate representative not contacted to be involved – Dismissal justified – Administrator
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Number of Pages 7
PDF File Link: aa 26_09.pdf [pdf 27 KB]