ERA decides there was no employment offer given to employee
A retiree who claimed he was unjustifiably dismissed from a security guard role despite his unclear job application status has been denied by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).
The ERA ruled that Rex Head was not given an employment offer, oral or written, from Armourguard to validate his claim.
"It follows that he was never employed by the company and he was never an employee, he could not have been unjustifiably dismissed," the ERA ruled.
Employment dispute
Head initially told the ERA that he was verbally offered a job from Armourguard for an Auckland railway station for four hours per day.
However, he had not been contacted about his application about a week since getting the verbal offer and was later told that the company was getting a Certificate of Approval (COA), a training course designed to provide prospective security personnel comprehensive understanding of the security industry in New Zealand.
After not getting an update from Armourguard over his COA, Head went on to complete a COA course with a third-party provider.
He submitted the details of his COA to the Ministry of Justice, which administers the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority that issues the COA.
He informed Armourguard of this completion, and wished to make an appointment with the employer once he got his temporary COA that will allow him to work while his COA application was being processed.
Armourguard's recruitment team, however, responded and said they would no longer take his application further.
Head took the matter to the ERA alleging unjustified dismissal and ageism for his situation.
Armourguard's defence
Brenda Christiansen, representative for Armourguard, denied that it was ageism that made them reject Head.
According to the representative, it was his "criminal and driving convictions history and the potential reputational risk" they would pose to the organisation.
Christiansen also clarified that Head was only pre-screened and completed the company's pre-employment document, which included an MOJ vetting form.
She then argued that Head had never been an employee of Armourguard and did not receive an offer of employment from the organisation - which the ERA agreed on.
No employment offer
According to the authority, there are "difficulties" with Head's claim of verbal employment offer, which did not have any evidence to support it and was "inconsistent" with how Armourguard's recruitment process operates.
It pointed out that Armourguard's email telling him that they would no longer move forward of his application was the "best evidence" that no employment offer was made.
"For the reasons given above, the Authority finds that no offer of employment oral or written, was made by Armourguard to Mr Head," the ERA said.
