| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 214 |
| Hearing date | 23 Feb 2012 |
| Determination date | 22 June 2012 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | E Bluegum, A Jefferies ; P McBride |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Shoebridge v Parakai Motordrome 2009 Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found respondent adopted fair and reasonable process and consulted applicant about respondent’s financial difficulties – Found no evidence applicant treated differently to other employees - No dismissal - COUNTERCLAIM – BREACH OF CONTRACT – Found parties agreed applicant would not work out notice period - No breach of contract - Supervising Mechanic |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as supervising mechanic. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Respondent claimed applicant resigned from employment and respondent incurred damages as applicant failed to work out notice. Respondent sought penalty for applicant’s alleged breach of parties’ employment agreement. Applicant had health issues and took time off work. Respondent director (“F”) had concerns about applicant’s health when applicant returned to work and requested applicant have different duties. Applicant claimed treated differently by F when returned to work, had to do extra work and no longer had access to work vehicle. F denied told applicant to resign or applicant would be “removed” from supervisory position. F told applicant respondent under financial pressure. Applicant resigned.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL:;No evidence applicant treated differently by respondent when returned to work. Respondent adopted fair and reasonable process and consulted applicant about respondent’s financial difficulties. No evidence applicant treated differently to other employees. No dismissal.;COUNTERCLAIM – BREACH OF CONTRACT: Parties agreed applicant would not work out notice period. No breach of contract. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s136(2) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Shop Employees IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd (1985) ERNZ Sel Cas 136 ; [1985] 2 NZLR 372 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_214.pdf [pdf 48 KB] |