| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 139/09 |
| Hearing date | 21 Jul 2009 |
| Determination date | 31 August 2009 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | D Beck ; T McGinn |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Latham v The Adventure Centre Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Short term employment – Applicant attended respondent’s premises where interviewed and offered employment – Applicant failed to turn up to work on day expected – Respondent argued offer of employment lapsed as offer not accepted by applicant within stipulated time – Alternatively argued even if applicant an employee was never dismissed – Authority found applicant accepted offer of employment even though did not sign and return copy of letter of offer – Applicant unexpectedly admitted to hospital day before due to attend work – Authority preferred respondents evidence that left messages on applicant’s phone and never actually spoke to applicant – Applicant then told respondent would not be able to start work as planned, undergoing tests, and could be up to two weeks before knew if operation required – Authority found nothing said or done by respondent during discussion to give rise to grievance – Applicant claimed told respondent would be monitored weekly and would need one day off per week to attend appointments – Authority found respondent left with impression could be more than one appointment – Authority found respondent did not say or do anything amounting to dismissal of applicant – Subsequently applicant claimed avoided by respondent as embarrassed made dismissal – Authority rejected applicant’s argument told by respondent being replaced and part time work could become available – Found if applicant wanted to restore employment relationship different approach required rather than immediately claiming compensation and costs – Authority found meeting with applicant not disciplinary one – Authority noted receipt of unemployment benefit did not reduce lost remuneration when assessing remedies for proven grievances – Found no dismissal – Sales consultant |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s123(c)(i) |
| Cases Cited | James & Co v Hughes [1995] 2 ERNZ 432 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 139_09.pdf [pdf 50 KB] |