| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 144 |
| Hearing date | 20 Feb 2012 |
| Determination date | 27 April 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | G Bennett ; S Langton, N Dines |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Bourke v Kohler New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions – Respondent claimed applicant resigned – Authority noted delay in issuing determination due to respondent’s failure to provide statement in reply – Authority found in parties’ best interests that investigation meeting held without further delay – Applicant developed strategy to improve respondent profitability but result of strategy was applicant’s own role reduced – Applicant manager (“L”) claimed concerns about applicant’s management style and requested meeting with applicant – L decided marketing employees would no longer report to applicant – Applicant claimed change in reporting lines unilateral decision – Applicant unhappy in role and suggested respondent make applicant’s role redundant – Parties disputed whether L agreed with applicant role would be made redundant – L sent applicant letter that L would discuss applicant’s redundancy proposal with respondent president (“W”) – Applicant claimed respondent undertook restructure by stealth and redundancy decision already made – Authority found redundancy applicant’s suggestion and redundancy only proposal at that stage – W claimed told applicant would not make applicant redundant and applicant needed to resign if wanted to leave respondent – Parties agreed applicant said would resign – Respondent denied applicant had no option but to resign and claimed W did not promise applicant financial settlement – Found likely applicant had job offer around time resigned – Found respondent wanted to retain applicant – Found little evidence applicant’s resignation caused by respondent’s conduct – Respondent seeking replacement for applicant at time of investigation meeting – Found nothing to suggest applicant’s role superfluous or had substantially changed - Found applicant’s resignation voluntary and applicant’s role not redundant at time or after applicant resigned – No dismissal - Managing Director |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s157(1) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW (Inc) [1994] 1 ERNZ 168;Business Distributors Ltd v Patel [2001] ERNZ 124;Wellington, Taranaki and Marlborough Clerical IUOW v Greenwich (t/a Greenwich and Associates Employment Agency) (1983) ERNZ Sel Cas 95 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_144.pdf [pdf 52 KB] |