| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 245 |
| Hearing date | 21 Jun 2012 |
| Determination date | 23 July 2012 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | N Riggs ; K Beck |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Riggs v Foodstuffs (Auckland) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by bullying and harassment from respondent’s management team and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found respondent supportive employer - Found no bullying and harassment of applicant such as to result in breach of duty on part of respondent causing resignation – Found no evidence of bullying and harassment of applicant by respondent – Found applicant’s resignation not foreseeable – No constructive dismissal – No unjustified disadvantage – Goods inward administrator |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as goods inward administrator. Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by bullying and harassment from respondent’s management team and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant claimed harassment started after attempted suicide by co-worker. Applicant thought management staff laughed at incident and applicant berated management staff about response to suicide attempt. Distribution Manager (“G”) and Operations Manager (“A”) denied laughing at incident. Three months later G employed applicant’s son on applicant’s request despite respondent’s normal protocol not to employ family members. Applicant invited to disciplinary meeting in connection with allegation of unauthorised possession of stock. Applicant received first warning. Applicant claimed relationship with respondent deteriorated further. One year later respondent asked applicant to be involved in cross-training exercise whereby employees learnt processes involved in positions undertaken by other employees. G explained purpose to provide cover for busy periods and meet respondent’s objectives of opportunities for improvement. G noticed applicant unhappy and asked to talk to applicant. G reiterated reasons for cross-training and reassured applicant job was secure. G considered applicant’s comment about world falling apart around applicant related to applicant’s personal situation rather than cross-training. Applicant’s doctor recommended take month off work. Medical certificate issued for stress and anxiety related to work issues but applicant remained at work and failed to present certificate to respondent. Two weeks later meeting held and applicant instructed to cross-train with another member of inwards goods team. Applicant claimed at meeting told to “shut up” by co-worker. Applicant assured change temporary. Applicant resigned. Respondent’s Manager (“M”) and A met with applicant. Applicant claimed applicant and co-worker only employees affected by cross-training. M explained cross-training happening throughout distribution centre. Applicant claimed A out to get her since warning regarding unauthorised possession of stock. A made clear to applicant cross-training for limited time and would not require work outside applicant’s job description. Applicant confirmed resignation. Applicant claimed constructively dismissed by respondent.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: No evidence of respondent’s alleged response to attempted suicide or applicant voicing concerns at time. Offer of employment to applicant’s son indicated constructive and supportive employment relationship. At time of disciplinary meeting applicant accepted warning and apologised for action. Applicant did not complain about disciplinary process. Applicant familiar with cross-training process. Cross-training process temporary. Actions of G indicative of supportive employer who valued applicant. Respondent unaware of medical certificate. Reasonable for respondent to be unaware of applicant feeling bullied and harassed. No bullying and harassment of applicant such as to result in breach of duty on part of respondent to provide safe workplace causing applicant’s resignation. Resignation not foreseeable. No constructive dismissal. No obligation on respondent to dissuade applicant from resigning. No bullying and harassment of applicant by respondent. No unjustifiable disadvantage. |
| Result | Application’s dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW Inc [1994] 1 ERNZ 168; [1994] 2 NZLR 415;Auckland etc Shop Employees etc IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd (1985) ERNZ Sel Cas 136; [1985] 2 NZLR 372;Stiffe v Wilson & Horton Ltd unreported, Goddard CJ, 5 Dec 2000, AC94/00;Wellington Road Transport etc IUOW v Fletcher Construction Co Ltd (1983) ERNZ Sel Cas 59;Wellington, Taranaki and Marlborough Clerical etc IUOW v Greenwich (t/a Greenwich and Associates Employment Agency and Complete Fitness Centre) (1983) ERNZ Sel Cas 95 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_245.pdf [pdf 211 KB] |