| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 45 |
| Hearing date | 9 Jan 2012 |
| Determination date | 03 February 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | R Connolly (in person) ; J Brinkman, N Brinkman (both in person) |
| Location | Wellsford |
| Parties | Connolly v Brinkman and Anor |
| Other Parties | Brinkman |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant took time off to attend doctor for sinus irritation and subsequently took two days leave – Applicant claimed penalised for taking leave – Applicant set concerns out in letter – Applicant claimed did not receive payment of wages on time, was given ‘cold shoulder’ by respondents and made to do majority of unpleasant tasks in workplace such as chopping onions – Applicant claimed chopping onions caused sinus irritation in first place – Respondents claimed tried to talk to applicant after work but applicant refused – Applicant received first warning – Applicant claimed received warning straight after sent letter of complaint which showed respondents simply retaliating – Respondents claimed warning letter already in draft when applicant complained – Applicant received second warning for being hostile and aggressive – Respondents claimed applicant took annual leave in advance and spoke disrespectfully to respondents when respondents tried to explain matter – Applicant claimed respondents failed to discuss matters with applicant and warnings unfair – Applicant dismissed – Authority found respondents acted as fair and reasonable employers – Found trying to resolve issues between parties very difficult – Respondents claimed applicant failed to follow lawful and reasonable instructions – Respondents claimed discouraged from attending work because applicant would effectively do as pleased rather than as respondents wanted – Found meetings between parties failed to achieve any positive outcome – Found applicant to take responsibility for way engaged with respondents – Found respondents identified concerns with applicant, raised concerns, and reduced concerns to writing two warning letters – Found respondents dismissed applicant after receiving unhelpful responses – Dismissal justified – Found no evidence of bullying by respondents |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(4);ERA s103A(5) |
| Cases Cited | Angus and Anor v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2011] NZEMPC 160 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_45.pdf [pdf 48 KB] |