| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant agreed with co-worker’s (“S”) evidence that applicant and S flirted by way of text message – S complained to manager (“B”) about text messages – Applicant instructed to desist from text messaging S – S’s partner (“X”) learned of messaging between applicant and S – S argued X very angry when learned of continued messaging and left area as knew X’s history of violence – Co-worker argued noticed applicant became very nervous and 100 percent sure was related to news about X – Applicant denied fearing for own safety – Authority found evidence supported conclusion applicant fearful for own safety and wanted to leave area – Authority found evidence did not support conclusion applicant thought had been dismissed – Respondent’s managing director (“M”) upon learning X read messages told applicant was keeping distance from applicant – M told applicant could not believe applicant still at work and X would kill applicant – M argued told applicant to leave for two week holiday – Co-worker gave evidence applicant said M had not dismissed applicant – Applicant claimed told co-worker M said to call in two weeks – Authority found applicant and M not talking about ending employment relationship – Found were rather discussing that applicant should flee area temporarily to avoid contact with X – Authority rejected applicant’s argument did not know why needed to call M back – Authority did not accept applicant thought discussion with M amounted to termination of employment – Found M did not intend to nor actually, dismiss applicant – B argued told M how X discovered text messages – Authority found although evidence hearsay no reason to doubt accuracy – Authority found requirement for applicant to return keys not a dismissal or sending away – No dismissal – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by clause in individual employment agreement (“IEA”) – Respondent offered applicant 10 percent shareholding and employment in business purchased by respondent – Applicant claimed inclusion of deductions clause in IEA unreasonable and oppressive – Authority found applicant’s claim an attempt to challenge validity of agreed terms of employment – Authority found full definition of unjustified disadvantage excluded actions deriving solely from interpretation, application, or operation of IEA – Found no grievance or legal claim arose from clause – However, operation of clause subject to Wages Protection Act 1983 – Authority rejected applicant’s argument that tone and content of discussion with M gave rise to second disadvantage allegation – ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY – Applicant claimed had not received holiday pay following termination of employment – Respondent made deductions from applicant’s final pay for power, final rent, and cleaning applicant’s work residence – Authority did not accept that by signing IEA applicant gave consent to any deductions except power and final rent – Authority found respondent to repay remaining sum to applicant – Chef |