| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 176 |
| Hearing date | 30 Apr 2012 |
| Determination date | 28 May 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | J Williams (in person) ; P Oliver |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Williams v Auckland Ace Monograms Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by respondent's actions - Authority found little evidence suggesting respondent told applicant to resign or would be dismissed - Found no evidence respondent breached any duty or applicant's resignation foreseeable - No dismissal - Found no evidence of disparity of treatment or that applicant intimidated by respondent - No unjustified disadvantage - Machine Operator |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as machine operator. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's actions. Respondent claimed applicant resigned. Applicant raised multiple personal grievances. At parties' meeting respondent attempted to resolve previous issues. Further incident where applicant's co-worker (X") insulted applicant. Applicant raised personal grievance relating to X's comments. Applicant claimed after respondent refused to deal with issue decided would quit. Applicant claimed respondent told applicant to leave respondent. Respondent told applicant X had withdrawn statement. Respondent refused to comply with applicant's request X be issued with final written warning. Applicant worked out notice period and left workplace. Applicant sought respondent's apology and copy of parties' employment agreement ("EA"). Applicant claimed treated differently to respondent's other employees and verbally intimidated by respondent.;AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Little evidence suggesting applicant told to resign or would be dismissed. Clear evidence respondent intended to address X's comment but applicant resigned anyway. Applicant did not have right to tell respondent how should deal with disciplinary matter. No evidence respondent breached any duty. Applicant's resignation not foreseeable as had already raised five personal grievances. No dismissal. Authority noted had no power to order respondent apologise to applicant. As applicant's employment ended, respondent's failure to provide written EA could not be addressed. No evidence disparity of treatment or that applicant intimidated by respondent. No unjustified disadvantage. Respondent to provide applicant with pay slips and tax deduction records if possible." |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| 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 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_176.pdf [pdf 130 KB] |