ERA says dismissal had 'mixed ulterior motive' related to parties' personal relationship
Two friends recently ended up before the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) after having a disagreement in a laundry services business that saw one of them unjustifiably dismissed.
Vanessa Chandler and Jody King were close friends from the end of the 90s, with Chandler even living at King's home for a decade before they got into business.
King is the sole director and shareholder of by Queenstown Local Laundry Services Limited (QL), who hired Chandler as a laundress between 2016 and 2018.
Chandler returned to the business as a laundry supervisor and delivery driver in August 2019, where it was agreed that she would be paid $25 per hour, with a schedule of 41 hours starting Monday to Friday.
Employment dispute
The dispute began when Chandler returned to work after the April 2020 COVID-imposed lockdown, where she saw her wages reduced to $585.80 weekly.
Chandler told King this was unsustainable, and both agreed to reduce her hours to match the wages, leaving the supervisor with just Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays shifts.
Chandler was under the impression that the situation would only continue for six weeks, but the hours weren't restored to the initial arrangement, and her relationship with King deteriorated to the point where they ceased communicating.
They attempted to resolve their communication breakdown between July and September 2021, but Chandler said their meeting was "inconclusive."
Termination period
By September 2021, King attempted to end Chandler's employment, saying they "can't afford" to keep her employed.
But a termination letter did not come, and the employment relationship continued until March 2022, where King accused Chandler of "stringing out" her sick leave allocation.
She then told Chandler that her last day of employment would be on March 21.
Chandler then claimed that she was unjustifiably dismissed, while also raising the "unilateral reduction" of her wages and the imposition of altered hours and days worked.
King, however, argued that Chandler's dismissal was a "genuine redundancy," saying that business was struggling with opening profitability.
Was it unjustified dismissal?
The ERA ruled that Chandler was unjustifiably dismissed, citing the lack of evidence to prove that the move to make her redundant was genuine.
According to the ERA, Chandler was "treated shabbily" - with her dismissal and/or redundancy process executed in a flawed manner.
"I find it is more likely than not, the dismissal was for a mixed ulterior motive in that the personal relationship between Ms. King and Ms. Chandler had significantly deteriorated and Ms. King could not wait until Ms. Chandler found alternative employment," the ERA said.
"I have considered that QL is a small employer that was struggling post-COVID and that Ms. King was unwell but this does not detract from the complete absence of basic procedural steps prior to Ms. King peremptorily bringing the employment relationship to an end."
QL is now ordered to pay Chandler $20,000 pursuant to the Employment Relations Act 2000. It is also ordered to pay $25,000 in wage arrears and $13,325 in lost wages.
