A worker who failed a legal bid to prove he was dismissed, after he resigned when he felt he had little choice, must now pay legal costs to his former employer. Photo / 123RF
A worker who failed a legal bid to prove he was dismissed, after he resigned when he felt he had little choice, must now pay legal costs to his former employer. Photo / 123RF
An electrician who took his former employer to task over claims he was forced to quit his job must now pay the firm $8000 toward what they spent fighting him.
Jordan Churchill raised a personal grievance for unjustifiable, constructive dismissal two days after he resigned from his job with CityElectricians Wellington Ltd in June 2020.
In June this year he lost the argument that he had little choice but to quit, and was therefore constructively dismissed.
He was then ordered to pay the firm just over $2600 in special damages and a penalty.
He has now been ordered to pay just over half what the firm sought in costs, after each side was unable to agree on what was owed.
The end of Churchill's employment with City Electricians followed an incident at his home during which he claimed his employer "fundamentally breached the employment relationship", which left him with no option but to resign.
Churchill had been working with the firm since 2017, and in May 2020 he took ACC leave for surgery needed for a previous injury.
His initial four weeks off work for recuperation was extended on medical advice to a return-to-work date of July 1, but one of the firm's directors believed Churchill was working during his recuperation.
City Electricians Wellington (CEWL) argued Churchill was doing work for one of its major clients while he was certified fully unfit for work and on ACC.
An electrician who deleted data from company devices in a dispute has been ordered by the Employment Relations Authority to pay $8000 to his former employer. Photo / 123RF
A director of the firm, Dave Scott, then tried contacting Churchill to let him know he needed to return the company vehicle, laptop and tablet until he was fully fit for work.
A few days later, Scott went to Churchill's home on a Saturday to try to get the work equipment.
Scott was let into the house by a relative of Churchill, which resulted in an "incident" in which the details were disputed, but Churchill called the police.
Later that day he returned the work tablet, laptop and vehicle to his employer, via the police, but had done a factory reset on the laptop, resulting in the deletion of all data on it. He also deleted data from the tablet.
In June this year the Employment Relations Authority found Churchill's claim to have been constructively dismissed failed, mainly because it did not think Scott's actions were sufficient to cause Churchill's resignation.
The ERA also found that Churchill had breached his good faith obligation to his employer by re-setting his work laptop, but a counterclaim lodged by the company for alleged loss of work through loss of a client failed.
In reaching its decision on costs, the authority rejected the firm's starting point of a $10,000 daily tariff.
It adopted its own daily tariff approach as the starting point, which was $4500 for the first day of hearing, and $3500 for subsequent hearing days.
The firm also failed in its bid to seek a considerable uplift in costs.
While it had written to Churchill early on in the process telling him it thought his claim was an "unmeritorious try-on" and if he continued with the application the firm would seek full costs, the ERA found that did not represent a Calderbank offer, as it contained no offer to settle all or part of the matter.
"While the applicant was not successful in his claim of constructive dismissal, I am not persuaded that the applicant should not have brought his claim at all," ERA member Claire English said in her costs decision.
"An employee is entitled to challenge decisions made by their employer, and to have those decisions tested.
She said all things considered, a small uplift was appropriate in the circumstances, and awarded $8000 costs in favour of the firm.
