ERA said employer didn't raise employee's 'problematic' attendance before dismissing her
A retail worker has won more than $25,000 after the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ruled that she was unjustifiably dismissed by her employer.
Natasha Oswald was hired by Pridewear owner-operator Neela Patel in November 2022.
But she was terminated in January 2023 after Patel "became frustrated" that Oswald "continued to need time away from work at short notice for scheduled events."
Time-off incidents
The first incident was when Oswald took two days off work in the week leading up to Christmas after falling ill.
By December 21, she took further time off after learning her grandmother had passed away, another matter that Patel accepted.
When Oswald returned by December 28, she asked if she could swap her Friday shift with another employee so she could spend time with her daughter who would be celebrating her birthday that day.
Patel told her to take the day off, but later asked if Oswald could come for a couple of hours on Friday to help manage new stock. She didn't get any response.
On January 4, Oswald requested a change to her usual start time, finish time, and a longer lunch break so she could take her children to the dentist.
"By this time, it is fair to say that Ms. Patel was growing increasingly frustrated by what she saw as Ms. Oswald being repeatedly unreliable, working short hours, and repeatedly asking for time off after the roster had been issued," the ERA said.
Dismissal due to shop keys
Patel then informed Oswald that she was being taken off the roster, and later told the employee that her absences cost her money.
"So I'm sorry, but I'm taking you off the roster - I don't need last minute texts that stress me out," Patel told Oswald in a text message submitted to the ERA. "Please just drop in your key and take some time out."
Oswald objected to returning her shop keys but noted that she would be "more than happy" to do so once her employment was clarified.
Patel then told Oswald that she was "trespassed from the premises."
"You are now dismissed instantly for not complying," she said.
She later told Oswald that her non-compliance in returning the shop keys was the reason for her termination and they would meet on Tuesday to discuss her employment.
The meeting was inconclusive, the ERA noted. Patel told Oswald that she could have shifts on Sundays and Mondays, but this never came through as Oswald said she had child-care commitments.
Both parties never met again, and Oswald was unable to contact Patel as she had been blocked or removed.
Oswald later raised to the ERA that she was unjustifiably dismissed.
Unjustifiable dismissal
The ERA ruled in favour of Oswald in the case, stating that she was unjustifiably dismissed.
According to the ERA, Patel did not raise her concerns to Oswald's attendance before dismissing her.
"Ms. Patel gave Ms. Oswald the leave that Ms. Oswald had asked for and did not make it clear that this was problematic, or that Ms. Patel had expectations that planned absences should be arranged much earlier," the ERA said in its ruling.
This left Oswald without any opportunity to respond or to explain that she thought her absences were whole-heartedly approved, according to the authority.
This also left Patel without any opportunity to consider Oswald's position or explanation because there were no chances for the conversation to take place.
"For these reasons, the dismissal fails the test of justification set out at s 103A of the Act. Ms. Oswald was unjustifiably dismissed and is entitled to remedies," the ERA ruled.
The authority ordered Pridewear to pay Oswald $7,579 as compensation for lost remuneration, and $18,000 as compensation for hurt and humiliation.
