| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 160/09 |
| Hearing date | 16 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 23 September 2009 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | C Munro (Applicant in person) ; H Webber |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Munro v River Downs Dairy Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - No written employment agreement - Applicant claimed offered job for six hours per day, seven days a week for fixed term of eight weeks but dismissed after 19 days - Respondent claimed applicant not dismissed or asked to leave by respondent’s manager (“A”) but agreed to leave following informal discussion with another person (“R”) who was not employee of respondent - Authority rejected A’s claim offered applicant temporary job for few weeks to assess whether had stockmanship skills - Authority found unlikely A offered applicant permanent employment of six hours per day as did not need person for six hours work - Authority found applicant not engaged for fixed period of eight weeks - Authority found applicant employed part time to work up to six hours per day - Respondent had problems getting cows onto milking platforms - R was friend of one of respondent’s directors (“B”) and had agreed to help out on farm as respondent had labour shortage - R concluded problems with cows caused by applicant’s lack of stockmanship skills - R told A and B of conclusions - R went to speak to applicant about concerns and suggest he leave - Conflict in evidence as to what was said by R to applicant and whether A involved in part of discussion - Authority preferred R’s evidence - A and R claimed applicant happy when left farm - Applicant did not dispute appeared happy but claimed did not indicate was leaving of his own accord - Respondent sought to distance itself from R’s actions - However, Authority found A and B knew and accepted R’s assessment of applicant’s skills - Found A and B at least implicitly endorsed R approaching applicant with intention of securing applicant’s resignation - Found clear to A applicant not leaving of own accord - Authority concluded termination of applicant’s employment was at initiative of respondent and was dismissal - No attempt made to justify dismissal - Unjustified dismissal - Remedies - Authority accepted applicant contributed to circumstances giving rise to dismissal but not in blameworthy way - No contributory conduct - Authority found respondent would have continued applicant’s employment for at least a week - Applicant found alternative employment week after dismissal - Applicant entitled to reimbursement of one weeks lost wages - Applicant did not claim compensation for hurt and humiliation - Authority rejected applicant’s claim for payment of petrol allowance as applicant did not incur expense after dismissal - Dairy farm worker |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($532) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s66;ERA s67 |
| Cases Cited | Wellington, Taranaki & Marlborough Clerical etc IUOW v Greenwich V.V. & C.F. (t/a Greenwich & Associates Employment Agency & Complete Fitness Centre) [1983] ACJ 965 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 160_09.pdf [pdf 29 KB] |