Peter Carrington was awarded $2250 from the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) after it was found Armourguard Security in Christchurch gave him an unjustified warning.
The damages, awarded by ERA member Helen Doyle, included reparation for weeks Carrington should have been offered 35 hours of work but wasn't.
Carrington claimed his workplace was interfering with his wages, lacked rest times and had poor health and safety, and that he faced discrimination by colleagues speaking their native language in front of him.
But in her recent decision, Doyle found that most of Carrington's claims were not justified.
In his resignation letter dated June 2019, Carrington said he could "no longer tolerate this work environment".
His letter stated there were breaches of driver safety, fraud against his earnings, he had not received a "promised" pay increase, and he was unjustifiably "dismissed".
Carrington said he was not an Indian national and therefore faced discrimination as he felt "left out" when his colleagues spoke another language around him.
However, Doyle found a lot of the claims lacked evidence and she was not satisfied that Armourguard Security was in breach of statutory obligations.
Instead, she ruled that Carrington was entitled to costs for an unjustified warning issued to him after he raised his voice at another employee and reparation for seven weeks that he wasn't offered the agreed 35 hours of work.
The meeting was held between Carrington, his wife, and two Armourguard staff, national logistics manager Ashley Burkhart, who no longer works there, and cash operations manager Denise Dabinette.
The outcome included compensation of 16 hours paid out to Carrington for cancellation of shifts at late notice and an agreement that 35 hours of work would be offered to Carrington.
Carrington expressed he still wasn't happy after the meeting and informed Armourguard Security staff he and his lawyer would be going to the authority.
In September 2019, three months after handing in his resignation letter, Carrington raised a grievance for constructive dismissal among other issues.
A person employed by Armourguard Security should receive a collective agreement and job description with the letter of offer, the ERA was told, however, Carrington denied ever receiving these.
He said he noticed that the collective agreement was not attached to the letter at the time but "did not worry about it" then.
Doyle found no evidence to suggest that the collective agreement and job description had deliberately not been attached to the letter of offer and the letter gave Carrington a reasonable opportunity to obtain advice if he wanted it.
Other concerns raised by Carrington were money deducted from his pay for a meal break he had not taken and he sought a full refund for this.
However, Dabinette and Burkhart told the authority that Carrington's manager made it clear he needed to take a meal break.
He also referred to breaches of the Land Transport Act because there were no logbooks and drivers were working excessive hours.
Carrington referred to some of the vehicles that had exposed wiring, ripped floor mats and faulty air conditioning.
He later accepted that when he raised these issues they were fixed in due time and Doyle, therefore, found that Armourguard Security did not breach its health and safety obligations.
Carrington also raised concerns about his hours being reduced, which he believed was retaliation but Doyle did not agree.
"Rather, I find that it more likely than not that when Mr Carrington commenced employment there were staff shortages resulting in more hours being offered and worked by him... More staff were employed in July/August... Accordingly, fewer hours were offered to Mr Carrington."
Doyle also found no evidence to suggest that Carrington had to drive for excessive hours and drivers were sometimes put up overnight to overcome any risk of excessive driving hours.
She did, however, find that Armourguard Security didn't offer Carrington the 35 hours of work a week that was agreed upon, which she ordered reparation for.
Doyle also found the warning Carrington received for raising his voice with an employee about timesheets and recording meal breaks was unjustified.
Doyle said the initial allegation appeared to be about failure to follow instructions but the warning was about behaviour, such as bullying and making false statements.
Because it was unclear what matters were considered in the warning and what exactly the warning was for, Doyle found it to be unjustified.
Doyle also didn't find any breaches in relation to discrimination as Armourguard Security said they didn't want to discourage anyone from speaking a language they wished. She said Carrington's claim that he was "dismissed" did not stand.
"Mr Carrington was unhappy in his work with Armourguard and he had some health issues at the time of his resignation.
"I am not satisfied that he has been able to establish that he was dismissed. Rather I find he resigned."
There was also no evidence Carrington was entitled to a pay increase that he said he was promised.
-By Emily Moorhouse
