��һ�ǿ�����

A man employed to install blinds called in sick on four occasions within his first three weeks of starting work, which partly contributed to his being sacked.

Zainal Abbas had worked nine days for No1 Blinds Limited in Auckland before he was dismissed for what his boss said was poor attendance and performance on the job.

He had called in sick for reasons including that he had “got the sh**s”, was throwing up, and had a family emergency.

Once he claimed he was at a doctor’s appointment about glass embedded in his neck “during a childhood accident”.

Now, he’s been awarded $12,000 in lost wages and compensation for humiliation and injury to his feelings from the way he was unjustifiably dismissed.

The employer has also been ordered to pay a $4000 penalty for two breaches of employment standards.

A spokesman for the blinds company called the ERA decision "absolutely ridiculous". Talks were under way to consider an appeal. Photo / 123RF

A spokesman for the company told ��һ�ǿ����� he were now in talks with a lawyer over whether to appeal the decision he called “absolutely ridiculous”, given the short time the young man had worked there.

He said businesses were already struggling, and the stress the company had been placed under had been “unbelievable”.

Some of the staff employed at the company had been there 18 years and were incredulous over what had happened, he said.

Defects in process ‘more than minor’

Abbas’ claim to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) was canvassed in a recently released decision, which stated the company’s breaches that led to the penalties were around its failure to provide wage and time records immediately on request, and the failure to pay the entire amount of wages when due.

The finding of unjustifiable dismissal was centred on defects in the process of addressing problems in the employment relationship.

“They were more than minor and resulted in Mr Abbas being treated unfairly,” said ERA member Robin Arthur.

The decision stated Abbas signed an employment agreement with No1 Blinds on January 19, 2024, and began work on February 1.

He initially worked with an experienced installer, but a few days later, the senior worker was off work with an injury, and Abbas was sent to customers’ homes and premises to do installation work on his own.

It was from then that he began calling in sick, with the four days of leave occurring from February 9 until February 20.

The company’s operations manager, Vikash Kumar, called him to a meeting to talk about concerns with his attendance and performance.

Abbas claimed he was told he was “not a good fit for the role”.

He was 22 at the time and had done a pre-trades plumbing course, so was familiar with using various tools, but most recently had been working in a sales job, the ERA detailed.

Abbas said Kumar had provided help solving installation problems and had been “a very supportive guy”, until the events of February 20, when he claimed he was told, “this is your last day”.

No proof of complaints

A brief series of text messages followed in which Abbas thanked Kumar for the chance to work for him and then asked when his pay would come through.

Kumar then alleged Abbas had damaged walls at a property where he had installed blinds, but failed to follow up with further information when asked.

The ERA said the company provided no evidence to corroborate the existence of those complaints.

The authority said the parties’ closing submissions gave two contrasting descriptions of whether Abbas’ departure was a resignation or a sending away that amounted to a dismissal.

The company said it was unlikely to have wanted to dismiss Abbas that day because it had spent time training him and, due to the injury of the experienced installer, was short-staffed.

Kumar claimed to have called the meeting to talk to Abbas about his time-keeping and it was too soon in the employment for any formal “sit down discussions” about performance issues.

Abbas argued that Kumar told him it was his last day and he could leave immediately.

The ERA said the text messages exchanged afterwards showed Kumar knew the employment relationship had ended and why.

Concerns about how his work was going, including that he had not been using the company’s electronic clock-in and clock-out system, and was instead reporting his hours by text message to Kumar, were not properly conveyed to Abbas, it was found.

“He was not given a reasonable opportunity to consider and respond to them,” Arthur said in the decision.

In the finding of an unjustified dismissal, Abbas was awarded $4000 in reimbursement of wages lost as a result of his grievance and $8000 as compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to his feelings.

Abbas’ request for a portion of the $4000 in penalties to be paid to him was declined.

The employer was ordered to pay that to the ERA, which would in turn pay it to the Crown.

��һ�ǿ����� has approached Abbas for comment through the advocate who represented him.

Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at ��һ�ǿ�����. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.