| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 374 |
| Hearing date | 6 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 25 August 2011 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | M Moncur ; R Chen |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Zhang v Fly 8 Shop Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Abandonment - Applicant claimed dismissed by respondent’s duty manager (“F”) during argument – Respondent claimed applicant abandoned employment - Applicant left workplace after argument with F and did not return – Applicant claimed would not have resigned as applicant and partner reliant on applicant’s wage – Applicant claimed treated well by respondent’s director (“M”) but had conflicts with F and other duty manager (“X”) – Applicant had complained to M about X previously but M resolved matter – Applicant claimed told by F after argument “don’t bother to come back” and that confirmed dismissal – Applicant claimed went back to F few minutes later, asked if had really been dismissed and F replied had been upset with applicant for while but had not had opportunity to say so – Applicant claimed asked F to contact M but F said did not need to as M listed to F – F claimed only asked applicant to calm down but applicant refused to talk – F claimed told applicant could not leave without giving notice and could just pretend nothing happened if applicant wanted – F claimed applicant became aggressive so F left room and when returned applicant had left - M claimed not told about argument until applicant left but applicant aware F did not have authority to dismiss – M claimed called applicant twice that evening but no ringtone or voicemail – M claimed did not try calling again as had talked applicant out of leaving before and did not think was worth trying again – Applicant claimed M had called applicant’s cell phone before and did not receive call from M – M acknowledged had personal relationship with F but denied F had authority to dismiss applicant – Applicant did not contact respondent again until raised personal grievance next month - Applicant had applied for permanent residence and applicant and respondent had obligation to tell NZ Immigration (“Immigration”) if employment ended – Applicant advised Immigration no longer employed by respondent when raised personal grievance – M claimed did not tell Immigration as did not immediately assume applicant not coming back – M claimed as other employees had complained concluded applicant not good team member but applicant needed as experienced and skilled barista – M claimed organising cover caused additional cost and inconvenience – Authority not satisfied F’s comment F had been upset with applicant but had not had opportunity to say so confirmed applicant’s dismissal – Authority found while reasonable for applicant to suspect M might support F, not satisfied applicant believed F had right to end applicant’s employment – Found not unfair and unreasonable that M did not attempt to talk applicant out of leaving again and left applicant to decide what wanted to do – Found respondent did not dismiss applicant – No personal grievance - Barista |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_374.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |