Niece loses job dismissal claim

A woman who claimed her uncle fired her from a Dunedin department store has lost her personal grievance claim to the Employment Relations Authority.

Sarah McLennan - a worker at Arthur Barnett in Dunedin for about seven years while she went to school and university - filed a personal grievance in February last year.

In a ruling last week, after a hearing on June 8, the authority dismissed the claim, finding Ms McLennan had not been sacked.

Ms McLennan had argued that her employment was summarily terminated after her manager and uncle, Philip McLennan, left a message on her phone about her employment.

Ms McLennan took the message as a termination and sought legal advice.

Arthur Barnett argued the message was not a dismissal and it was her responsibility to inform the store what hours she could work during the year.

During mediation management said Ms McLennan had been and remained a casual employee and said there had been a misunderstanding.

Due to illness and an unconfirmed university timetable Ms McLennan's work hours had changed over the summer holiday period but before this she described her work as a "relatively full-time job".

Mr McLennan said he had rung his niece to check how she was after she had been off work and asked her to call when she knew her timetable and that he would call if he had any work.

Ms McLennan had also been involved in mediation after clashing with another employee, who had been hired to fill a newly created role.

Ms McLennan argued that Arthur Barnett wanted her out of her role because of their new staff appointment.

Authority member Philip Cheyne said he accepted the new employee was in a more senior position to Ms McLennan but rejected her claim that the store wanted her out of her position.

Despite the conflict between the two employees the store had tried to make alternative arrangements to ensure both were happy, Mr Cheyne said.

He did not accept that Mr McLennan's phone call to his niece amounted to a termination. While the two versions of the phone call did not vary greatly, if Ms McLennan's version was accepted, the store had said the relationship would continue, he said.

Arthur Barnett was wrong to describe Ms McLennan as a casual employee but it was correct to say her work hours had been "varied and flexible" to fit with her study commitments.

There was no termination of the relationship by Arthur Barnett and so no personal grievance.

- NZPA