Employer later found to have unjustifiably dismissed employee
An employer accused of unjustifiably dismissing an employee declined an appearance to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) unless he was paid by Bitcoin, according to reports.
Angelo Ioanides is the company director of Hoki Dental Limited in Hokitika in South Island.
Ioanides was accused of unjustifiably dismissing Johanna Lescure after he rescinded his job offer of a permanent role as a dental assistant prior to her start date.
Instead, Ioanides said they were unable to offer Lescure anything more than a casual contract, as the position they initially offered her no longer existed.
Lescure rejected the offer and raised the matter to the ERA claiming unjustified dismissal and seeking compensation and reimbursement of lost remuneration.
According to the ERA, Hoki Dental Limited provided several sets of material but did not appear to give evidence nor attend the investigation meeting. Ioanides was given a notice on the investigation meeting, according to the authority, but he did not appear.
Stuff later reported that Ioanides had sent the ERA a document a day before the investigation meeting saying he was a "settlor" and was seeking payment for his appearance during the investigation meeting.
"As the Settlor is not a volunteer, the Settlor would be delighted to attend the investigation meeting for a fee of 0.5 Bitcoin per hour, paid in advance," Ioanides said in the document as quoted by Stuff.
The request was not granted, and the ERA said in the court document that an employee of Hoki Dental Limited refused to give Ioanides the call when an authority officer rang their office.
"A message was left that the investigation meeting would proceed," the ERA said.
Despite the company director's absence, Hoki Dental Limited remained firm that its decision on Lescure's employment was justified.
According to the organisation, the offer was withdrawn before it was accepted, so Lescure was not an employee and could not have been dismissed.
If there was indeed an employment agreement, Hoki told the ERA that it had "become frustrated" and could be terminated under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017.
According to the ERA, the "doctrine of frustration" did not apply to the employment dispute.
A contract would only frustrated when it has "become impossible to perform," the ERA said, citing the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017.
In Hoki Dental Limited's case, the dentist who originally Lescure had to replace apparently changed her mind and would return to her former position.
"Such a circumstance did not make the performance of the employment agreement between Hoki Dental Limited and Ms Lescure impossible or otherwise incapable of being performed," the ERA said in its ruling.
"Even if that circumstance made Ms Lescure's position surplus to Hoki Dental Limited's requirements, it was able to exercise rights under the agreement to terminate Ms Lescure's employment on notice following consultation with her."
The ERA also ruled that Lescure's dismissal was unjustified. According to the authority, Hoki Dental Limited did not raise its concerns to her, nor gave her a chance to respond before dismissing her.
"Hoki Dental Limited did nothing to investigate matters with Ms. Lescure before the dismissal," the ERA said. "A fair and reasonable employer could not have acted in that manner in all the circumstances at the time."
As a result, Hoki Dental Limited must pay Lescure reimbursement of $5,000 and compensation of $15,000.
