Employee Misuses Company Vehicle and Resigns
- Business Central
- Oct 29, 2024
- 3 min read
Updated: Nov 5, 2024
Ultimate Siteworks Ltd (Ultimate Siteworks) hired Mr Joyce on 27 September 2021. On 5 January 2022, he resigned but alleged Ultimate Siteworks dismissed him. The Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) found Ultimate Siteworks did not unjustifiably dismiss or disadvantage him. Mr Joyce challenged this determination and sought for the Employment Court (the Court) to find he was unjustifiably dismissed. He also challenged the Authority’s order to pay $5,750 to Ultimate Siteworks as a contribution to its costs for the Authority hearing. In turn, Ultimate Siteworks applied for sanctions against Mr Joyce, for breaching the Authority’s order to pay the award, and enforcement of him paying it.
Mr Joyce incurred six speeding tickets in Ultimate Siteworks’ ute during his employment, damaging the front after he said he missed a turn and slid into a barrier. On 5 January 2022, director Mr Rowe instructed Mr Joyce that the ute was to be used for work purposes only. Mr Joyce protested that he had put his personal car into storage in order to make space for the truck, so he had no other vehicle to drive. Notwithstanding this, Mr Rowe maintained his position.
“Are you serious bro[?] Well I’m going to have to hand my notice in then,” Mr Joyce texted. The two sorted details for ending Mr Joyce’s employment over the rest of the week, including that Mr Rowe instructed the return of company property. On 9 January 2022, Mr Joyce sought for Ultimate Siteworks to pay for additional hours.
Mr Rowe maintained he would pay everything Mr Joyce was owed, but not until the company property was returned. This began a dispute where Mr Joyce felt he was still owed wages and public holidays.
On 14 January 2022, Ultimate Siteworks’ other director, Mrs Rowe, asked if Mr Joyce could confirm whether he had resigned. She clarified that if he was employed, she wanted to know if he would work his notice. When Mr Joyce said he hadn’t resigned, she wrote out the timeline that Ultimate Siteworks had rejected a reduced notice period but did not terminate his employment.
Therefore, if he did not resign, he needed to confirm he was available for work. In the end, Mr Joyce did not return and instead owed the company $500 in leave in advance from the 2021 Christmas closedown.
The Court found Mr Joyce’s texts proved he initiated the termination of his employment. Ultimate Siteworks had no desire to end his employment and did not set out to do so. In their discussions, the parties reached agreement to end the employment on 8 January 2022.
When this agreement became disputed, Ultimate Siteworks sought to understand the full situation. Meanwhile, Mr Joyce had no reason to believe that Ultimate Siteworks would not pay him what he was due.
On 17 January 2022, he started a new job and spent a total of five days unpaid. The circumstances would have only justified a small award for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to his feelings. The Court agreed with the Authority that Mr Joyce was not unjustifiably dismissed or disadvantaged.
Mr Joyce suggested the costs ordered by the Authority should have been lower because some matters raised by Ultimate Siteworks made the investigation meeting longer than it needed to be. The Court disagreed, considering that Ultimate Siteworks raised matters reasonably and that the Authority’s assessment of costs was appropriate.
The Court decided his non-compliance was based in the optimism of winning his challenge to the determination.
A fine would have been warranted for breaches that were deliberate, wilful, repeated, ongoing, or without excuse or explanation. The proportionality of the breach’s value and circumstances of the parties, including financial circumstances, was also relevant.
Mr Joyce’s non-compliance did not comprise any of these traits and was for a modest, not very long breach. He was otherwise not in a strong financial position, having suffered an injury and been out of work, and had no past record of non-compliance. The Court concluded it would not order a fine, but emphasised Mr Joyce was to pay the Authority’s original compliance order. It encouraged the parties to agree on costs for the proceeding this time round.
Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks Limited [[2024] NZEmpC 64; 18/04/24; Judge Holden]
