| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 94 |
| Hearing date | 12 Apr 2012 |
| Determination date | 21 May 2012 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | M Thomas, R Donnelly ; G Taylor |
| Location | Invercargill |
| Parties | King v J & R Pumps Southland Ltd t/a Waterforce |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's actions - Authority found applicant voluntarily resigned from employment - No dismissal - Found applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent preventing applicant from using cell phone for personal use, respondent manager's (N") language or not receiving salary increase or bonus - Found applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by N's instruction applicant move desk into N's office - REMEDIES - $500 compensation appropriate - Administrator" |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as administrator. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent preventing applicant from using respondent cell phone for personal use, non-payment of salary increase or bonus, respondent's abusive language and request applicant move desk. Applicant claimed required to work excessive hours in order to complete duties and left with no option but to resign. Respondent claimed applicant refused to complete duties to required standard and resigned without giving respondent notice. Respondent denied applicant's hours excessive and claimed applicant's duties could be completed within usual hours. Applicant claimed respondent ignored repeated requests applicant's workload be reduced. Applicant said in emails to friend sent on respondent email applicant mucking about" and "bored." Applicant claimed respondent manager ("N") swore at applicant and N's instructions to move applicant's desk into N's office degrading. Applicant resigned and told respondent could not work out notice period. Respondent claimed applicant personal use of respondent cell phone excessive.;AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant had not worked excessive overtime in last period of employment and had taken time off in lieu of overtime worked and significant annual leave. Applicant's emails indicated applicant had active social life, disengaged from duties and looking for alternative employment. Respondent provided applicant with assistance with coping with workload. Applicant voluntarily resigned from employment. No dismissal. UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent preventing applicant from using cell phone for personal use or not receiving salary increase or bonus. Use of coarse language was commonplace at respondent and N's language would not have upset applicant. Applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by N's language. Applicant would have found request to move desk into N's office degrading and applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by N's instruction. Applicant failed to provide correct notice and breached good faith requirements. REMEDIES: $500 compensation appropriate." |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($500) ; Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1)(a);ERA s134(1) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers Industrial Union Of Workers (Inc) [1994] 1 ERNZ 168 ; [1994] 2 NZLR 415;Wellington, Taranaki and Marlborough Workers Clerical IUOW v Greenwich (t/a Greenwich and Associates Employment Agency) (1983) ERNZ Sel Cas 95 |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_94.pdf [pdf 74 KB] |