Is it a reasonable restriction or unjustifiable dismissal?
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case involving a worker challenging the determination that he had not been dismissed by his employer.
He said that he had no choice but to resign when the company restricted the use of its company vehicle.
The worker started working for Ultimate Siteworks, a small civil earthworks business, as a machine operator in September 2021.
He was provided with a company vehicle, a Nissan Navarra ute, which he could use to commute to work and for limited personal use. However, during his employment, the worker incurred six speeding tickets while using the ute and had an accident with it on 31 December 2021.
Concerned about the worker's driving behaviour, Ultimate Siteworks told him on 5 January 2022 that the ute was to be used for work purposes only.
Dispute over worker’s termination
According to records, a series of text messages were exchanged between the worker and the employer, with the worker expressing his dissatisfaction with the restriction on using the ute for personal purposes.
He indicated that he would have to hand in his notice as a result. The employer responded, stating that it would be "cleaner and easier" if the worker did not return to work.
The worker then sought additional hours and payments, threatening to take the matter to court if his demands were not met.
The employer maintained that the worker would be paid what he was owed and expected all company property to be returned.
Worker’s claim of unjustifiable dismissal
The worker's principal claim was that he was dismissed by Ultimate Siteworks and that his dismissal was unjustifiable.
He argued that the dismissal was either actual or constructive or, alternatively, that he had been unjustifiably disadvantaged.
However, the court found that the termination of employment was at the initiative of the worker. The documentary evidence showed that the worker had advised he wanted to end his employment, and the employer had no desire to end his employment.
As stated in the judgment, "[The worker] initiated the termination of his employment. Ultimate Siteworks had no desire to end his employment and did not set out to do so."
The court also agreed with the ERA that the worker was not dismissed by Ultimate Siteworks, and the circumstances did not amount to an unjustifiable disadvantage.
