Employer argues worker chose to resign
The Employment Relations Authority recently dealt with the claim of a worker who said he was unjustly disadvantaged after he accepted to resign due to his employer’s terminal health condition.
Ian Johnston served as an office administrator at Dacombe Motor Company (DMC) starting from July 9, 2018. Although no written employment agreement was in place, his terms included a 30-hour workweek, Monday to Friday, and an hourly wage.
On July 8, 2020, Johnston left his position and did not return. He said that he was terminated, while DMC said he resigned, opting for two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.
Business owner’s ill health
According to records, there had been ongoing discussions with Johnston in late 2019 and early 2020 about his employment “coming to an end,” as it expected that its business would close by the end of 2020 due to the ill health of the owner-operator, Gordon Dacombe.
This meant Johnston’s employment would end around Christmas 2020. There was then a meeting on July 7, 2020 in which the timing of the end of Johnston’s employment was discussed because it appeared unlikely that its business could operate until the end of 2020 on its current turnover, and there was now a possibility that another family member might run the business but could only do so on reduced costs.
In the July 7 meeting, the employer raised the possibility of Johnston finishing early so that he might move on with some certainty over his future rather than working day to day at the business, being unsure if the business would continue to operate.
The employer offered that if Johnston chose to leave early, it would pay him his accrued holiday pay plus his two weeks’ notice in lieu of working so he would have a decent lump sum to live on.
On July 8, 2020, Johnston spoke to DMC and advised he would accept the offer of two weeks’ payment in lieu of notice and would leave immediately, which he then did after saying goodbye to other staff.
Subsequently, he requested a termination letter citing redundancy for benefits. DMC complied, stating that Johnston’s role was redundant due to organisational and operational changes.
Later, Johnston filed personal grievances for unjustifiable dismissal based on the events of July 7, 2020, and unjustified disadvantage stemming from the absence of a written employment agreement.
Was the worker at a disadvantage?
The Authority found that DMC acted unjustifiably and caused a disadvantage to Johnston.
“It did so because it decided Johnston’s employment would end before Christmas 2020 without any consultation and then engaged with Johnston on this basis to persuade him to finish work before Christmas 2020,” it said.
“This was not fair to Johnston. [He] has a personal grievance for unjustified action causing disadvantage,” it added. The Authority then awarded him compensation.
