| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 48 |
| Hearing date | 17 Nov 2011 |
| Determination date | 26 April 2012 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | P McBride ; A Scott-Howman, J Eng |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Shaw v Schering-Plough Animal Health New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions – Order prohibiting publication of applicant’s personal details and information identifying third parties – Applicant raised concerns with supervisor (“B”) about behaviour of co-worker (“A”) – Applicant told B wanted concerns treated confidentially – B claimed had several conversations with A and observed A’s behaviour over following months – B claimed observed nothing that would concern applicant – Applicant disputed told B on number of occasions nothing unacceptable had occurred – Applicant told B at meeting A’s behaviour worse – B claimed applicant provided no details and gave no indication applicant considering resigning – Applicant resigned – Applicant claimed resigned as respondent had not addressed issues raised by applicant three months previously – Matter brought to attention of respondent’s general manager (“P”) – Investigation commenced – Respondent concluded A’s behaviour not as serious as applicant alleged and applicant had engaged in similar behaviour and resignation unnecessary – Applicant informed of findings and asked to reconsider resignation – Respondent claimed applicant’s concerns mitigated by confidentiality request – Respondent claimed applicant’s concerns mitigated by applicant socialising at Christmas lunch, walking home with A and saying applicant ‘liked’ A – Respondent claimed applicant resigned because job more stressful and applicant felt not challenged sufficiently in role – Authority found lewd conversations part of workplace culture – Found B acted in good faith – Found applicant did not provide B details how A’s behaviour worse or give B chance to follow complaint up before resigning – Found matter correctly referred to P after applicant’s resignation and investigation into A’s behaviour appropriate – Found respondent entitled to conclude matter not serious enough to warrant resignation, applicant had condoned some of A’s behaviour and A’s swearing not directed at applicant – Found despite investigation applicant did not provide respondent opportunity to resolve problem – Found applicant’s decision to resign influenced possibly by applicant’s desire for time off and increased stress in job – No dismissal – Found respondent acted as fair and reasonable employer – Found applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged – Logistics coordinator |
| Result | Applications dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_48.pdf [pdf 47 KB] |