| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 185 |
| Hearing date | 21 Feb 2011 |
| Determination date | 06 May 2011 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | G Rodgers ; C McDowall |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Schoenhardt v Allied Investments Ltd t/a Allied Security |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably constructively dismissed - Respondent denied applicant dismissed and claimed applicant abandoned employment - Applicant employed as casual employee to carry out security related duties – Conflict in evidence between parties – Credibility issues with both parties - In statement of problem applicant claimed contacted by respondent’s operation manager (“D”) and asked to carry out work at specific site – Applicant claimed told D would have to check with partner as would need her car to get to site – Applicant claimed D then called him in early hours of next morning in drunken state asking him to undertake work – Applicant claimed agreed to do work despite feeling unwell – Applicant claimed experienced ‘serious abdominal pain’ and had to leave worksite – Applicant went to hospital – Applicant’s partner informed D of applicant’s admission to hospital – D went to hospital and could not find applicant – D believed applicant had lied about being in hospital - Applicant involved in incident at another worksite involving scuffle between customers – Concerns expressed as to how applicant handled situation and exact nature of applicant’s duties – Meeting held between applicant, D and worksite manager to clarify respondent’s duties – Applicant informed was not to go behind counter unless valid reason to do so - D received call from duty manager at worksite informing him applicant had been behind counter to get drink when specifically told not to and requesting new security guard – D spoke with applicant who denied being behind counter – Ten minutes later applicant texted D to inform him he was going home – Applicant did not return to work - Authority found were inconsistencies in evidence provided by both parties as to what happened – Respondent invited applicant to disciplinary meeting – Applicant believed had been dismissed and while would discuss matter did not wish to have disciplinary meeting as believed no longer employed - Further communication between parties did not resolve issue - Authority found applicant not dismissed – Found applicant made conscious decision of own free will to leave worksite after conversation with D – Found having left of own free will applicant then attempted to portray situation as dismissal – No dismissal – Security Guard |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_185.pdf [pdf 41 KB] |