Fired security guard thought aftershocks triggered alarms

Alarms set off by aftershocks in Christchurch led to a security guard's dismissal. Photo / Geoff Sloan

A Christchurch security guard who didn't respond to security alarms because he thought they were triggered by aftershocks has been awarded more than $3500 after he took a case of unjustified dismissal to the Employment Relations Authority.

Robert Gomez claimed to have been unjustifiably dismissed by Sub 5 Private Security Limited on March 31, 2011.

It disputed that, saying he left of his own volition.

Mr Gomez was employed by the company in July 2009 and worked for the company as the team leader of mobile patrols.

ERA member Mike Loftus said Mr Gomez "reacted tersely when asked to attend an influx of aftershock activations one night in late March 2011".

Code 9, a company that monitors security alarms and advises the closest security officer, informed Mr Gomez of an influx of alarm activations following multiple aftershocks.

Mr Gomez was under the belief that Sub 5 did not to respond to aftershock-triggered alarms so chose not to respond to them.

Code 9 complained to Sub 5 operations manager Kelly Ennis.

After a meeting with one of Sub 5's directors, Barry Kay, days after the incident Mr Gomez left Sub 5.

The details of the meeting were disputed, but all parties agreed that Mr Gomez left the Sub 5 offices frustrated.

Their stories differed on whether Mr Gomez resigned or was fired on the spot by Mr Kay, but that was his last day working for Sub 5.

Mr Kay then asked him to return his swipe card, jacket and radio transmitter.

Mr Kay said he had "significant concerns about the security and safety of his premises".

On April 5, Mr Gomez returned to the office and handed the rest of his uniform and a letter addressed to Ms Ennis to the receptionist.

In his letter he requested payment of any unpaid wages and holiday pay and informed that he was "logging a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal, regarding termination of my employment on the 31 March 2011".

Mr Loftus found that a fair and reasonable employer would not take at face value a resignation given in such circumstances.

An employer would allow a cooling off period then discuss with the employee what had occurred, he said citing a 2007 court case.

As Sub 5 failed to do that, the resignation became a dismissal, Mr Loftus found.

The authority found Mr Gomez was entitled to $2081.52 for lost wages and a further $1600.00 as compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.

Mr Kay said he didn't want to comment because he was considering an appeal.

"When the authority says in its summary that Mr Gomez contributed to his termination or his resignation, whatever way you want to term it, and still find against the employer then I find that quite interesting."

Mr Gomez could not be reached for comment.