| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 364 |
| Hearing date | 14 Jul 2011 |
| Determination date | 18 August 2011 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | K Single ; K Hargis |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Mete v Euro Electrical Solutions Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant abandoned employment – Respondent subcontractor (“H”) informed workforce of need to reduce staff numbers due to shortage of work – Respondent staff received detailed letter from owner of respondent (“B”) outlining restructuring proposal – B explained proposed meeting not necessary as employee left – Applicant claimed advised by H that respondent downsizing and should look for other work – H claimed no mention of redundancy – Applicant accepted at investigation meeting that conversation did not indicate employment in jeopardy – Applicant claimed advised by B that position made redundant – B claimed no discussion of redundancy with applicant but did ask applicant to take annual leave due to shortfall of work – H collected work van, cell-phone and uniform from applicant– Applicant understood employment terminated due to H taking cell-phone and uniform – Applicant sent numerous letters to B requesting written notification of employment termination – B advised applicant termination not in issue and requested meeting with applicant – Applicant did not return to workplace – Authority found applicant left on annual leave rather than dismissed – Found applicant’s understanding that employment terminated due to H taking cell-phone and uniform not correct one – Found correspondence between applicant and B indicated that whilst applicant believed employment terminated for redundancy belief was unreasonable – Found applicant failed to act in good faith by not responding to B’s invitations to meet – Found B failed to fulfil good faith obligations to some extent by not alleviating applicant of mistaken belief that made redundant but failure compensated by B’s repeated urging of applicant to meet – Found applicant’s employment not terminated for redundancy – Found applicant effectively abandoned employment – ARREARS OF WAGES – Applicant claimed owed overtime for worked night shifts – Applicant unable to produce supporting documentation – B claimed applicant received time off in lieu for overtime – Found insufficient evidence to substantiate claim |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1A);ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s4(1A)(c)(i);ERA s4(1A)(c)(ii);ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_364.pdf [pdf 51 KB] |