Home      Contact      Index      FAQ's      Leave      Case Law      Purchase
Must make enquiries before assuming employment abandoned

What should an employer do if a worker does not report for work, and does not advise of the reason for his or her absence? Is the employer entitled to assume that the worker has abandoned his or her employment? The Employment Court dealt with this issue in a recent case.

EN Ramsbottom Limited employed Jody Chambers as a labourer. Mr Chambers did not have a written employment contract.

On 25 May 1998, Mr Chambers worked with two other employees lifting heavy drainage pipes from the ground onto the flat deck of a truck. Overnight, he began to experience groin pains and went to the doctor. He telephoned the Company's Managing Director, Mr Edward Ramsbottom, and later delivered an ACC medical report from his doctor stating that he was unfit for work for 3 days. Later, he also delivered to Mr Ramsbottom a second certificate stating that he was fit for work from 2 June 1998.

On 2 June 1998, Mr Chambers returned to work. He asked Edward Ramsbottom whether his ACC papers were in order. Edward Ramsbottom thought that his ACC claim was a "try on". He warned Mr Chamber's that his work performance was not up to scratch and that he was thinking of letting him go.

Edward Ramsbottom then spoke briefly with his son, Martin Ramsbottom, before leaving the yard. Mr Chamber's thought they were discussing whether or not to terminate his employment. After Edward Ramsbottom had left, he went over to Martin Ramsbottom and asked, "What's your Dad doing? Is he letting me go?"

Mr Chambers understood that Martin replied "Yes. We're letting you go". He then left work believing that he had been dismissed. The Tribunal however found that Mr Chambers was mistaken - that Martin Ramsbottom did not dismiss him, but instead referred him on the matter back to his father.

Thirteen days later, Mr Chambers brought a personal grievance against the Company for unjustified dismissal. The Company denied that it had dismissed Mr Chambers. It claimed that he had abandoned his employment by walking off the job and not returning to work.

The Tribunal dismissed Mr Chambers' personal grievance on the basis that he had not been dismissed. It also held that the Company was under no obligation to inquire why Mr Chambers was not at work before concluding that he had abandoned his employment. Mr Chambers appealed.

The Employment Court disagreed with the Tribunal.

"...there was a dismissal of [Mr Chambers] by the respondent company due to the combined actions of Edward Ramsbottom and Martin Ramsbottom, and by their failure to fairly check the situation with [Mr Chambers] when he did not appear for work as they expected. Edward Ramsbottom's assumption that [Mr Chambers] did not want to work was baseless and reached without any consultation with [him]" Judge Shaw said.

Judge Shaw awarded Mr Chambers $360 for lost wages, $6000 compensation for humiliation and distress, plus costs.

This case shows that an employer is not entitled to simply assume that because a worker has not reported for work, he or she has abandoned his or her employment. Instead the employer must inquire into the circumstances of the worker's absence. The employer must also consider renewing the worker's employment if there is a legitimate reason for the absence.

Chambers v EN Ramsbottom Ltd (WC 79/99)


More on Termination & Dismissal
  An employer's rights: Surfing all the day   Driver lost license
  Dealing with absent employees   Importance of procedural fairness
  Must consult in redundancy dismissals   Dismissal must be procedurally fair
  Misconduct discovered after dismissal   Another procedural fairness example
  Dismissed for benefit fraud   Terminated before started
  The danger of secret witnesses   Expired employment contract
  Cannot intimidate employer   Cannot rely on police enquiry
  Reasonable notice of redundancy   Contractural obligation must be met
  Reinstatement and workplace democracy   Employment and criminal investigation
  Attack not always good defence   Dismissal of persons in authority
  Employee responds by going on offensive   Legality of secret video surveillance
  ERA classifies contractor as employee   Redundancy law unchanged by ERA
  Loss of use of company car   Significant difference
  Resolution of criminal charges   Redundancy and changed hours
  Discrimination for being non Asian   Cannot take retaliatory action
  Failing to meet sales targets   Misconduct outside of work
  Abuse of Internet & Email   Suicide and communication
  Redundancy definition   Unjustified dismissal for pornography
  Abandonment of employment  
  Alphabetical Index   Case Law Back to top
This article originally written by Alan Cressey the copyright of which is owned by The Evening Post
Copyright © 1985 - 2010 Ace Payroll
Feedback? E-Mail Us!
Call Toll Free
0800 223 729
Updated: 31st March 2010
Published: 3rd February 2000
Back to top