| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 225/10 |
| Hearing date | 15 Sep 2010 |
| Determination date | 06 December 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | G Downing ; M Kirk |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Hall v My Pages Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Abandonment – Non-publication order made of applicant’s brief of evidence – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Alternatively claimed constructively dismissed – Essence of problem how long applicant given to resolve relationship with outside business interest and devote efforts entirely to respondent – Applicant had another business interest at time of recruitment and engagement by respondent – Respondent raised concern applicant spending inordinate time working on own business during paid time and from respondent’s premises – Respondent argued asked applicant whether committed to respondent or wanted to pursue own business affairs – Subsequently day after parties met applicant discovered desk moved out into reception area – Authority preferred respondent’s evidence that applicant to quit private business affairs between date employment agreement (“EA”) signed and date employment commenced – Found applicant’s recruitment on understanding would quit private business, therefore not unreasonable for respondent to be disgruntled applicant continuing affairs of private business – Found nothing sinister about meeting between parties – Respondent simply sought to remind senior employee of obligations in EA – Authority found appropriate for respondent to take from applicant’s email that applicant did not want to continue working until matters between parties resolved – Found applicant’s email could not be construed as indication of intention to resign – Authority rejected applicant’s claim respondent’s subsequent email amounted to dismissal – Found not unreasonable for respondent to request property be returned in circumstances where interregnum period and applicant clear not going to perform duties – Found applicant’s email not resignation but in sense withdrawal of labour in that unilaterally demanding time off while issues addressed – Found no actual or constructive dismissal – Found applicant abandoned employment – Found applicant gave no notice and terminated engagement – Found applicant genuinely wanted to resolve matter but hurt by perception being unreasonably treated by respondent – Counterclaim – Respondent claimed owed three months salary in lieu of notice – Authority found three month penalty out of proportion to alleged loss when only one month notice required – Found would not be appropriate for respondent to profit in circumstances where its treatment of applicant after employment came to end lacking in good faith – Found unacceptable and clear breach of good faith that was some months after employment came to end that applicant’s basic salary for two week period was paid – However, not prepared to levy penalty against applicant for breach of good faith – RECOVERY OF MONIES – Found applicant entitled 3 percent sales commission – General Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed (Dismissal)(Counterclaim) ; Application granted (Recovery of monies) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA Schedule 2, Cl 10(1);ERA Schedule 2, Cl 10(2) |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 225_10.pdf [pdf 69 KB] |