| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 150 |
| Hearing date | 22 Jun 2012 |
| Determination date | 26 July 2012 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | L Williams ; R Gibson |
| Location | Ashburton |
| Parties | Andrews v Talleys Group Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions - Applicant claimed respondent breached good faith obligations and sought penalty – Authority found applicant resigned from employment - No dismissal – Found respondent could have rectified misunderstanding if had met with applicant soon after meeting and told applicant had not been made redundant - Found respondent breached good faith obligations and unjustifiably disadvantaged applicant – REMEDIES - No contributory conduct - No reimbursement of lost wages - $1,000 compensation appropriate - Respondent’s breached good faith obligations but relatively minor - No penalty - Truck Driver |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as truck driver. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions. Applicant claimed respondent breached good faith obligations and sought penalty. Respondent manager (“C”) told applicant respondent trialling transporting produce by rail instead of truck. Respondent claimed told applicant if decided to use rail permanently could impact number of drivers needed by respondent. Applicant claimed told by C would be made redundant and responded angrily and left room. Another driver (“A”) claimed told by C applicant would be made redundant as applicant’s usual vehicle leased by respondent. Applicant requested letter from respondent stating would be made redundant and claimed told would not be made redundant yet. Respondent claimed only told applicant would not produce letter as applicant not made redundant. Applicant found other employment and resigned.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Not sensible for respondent to make applicant redundant before knew if trial would be success and aware could need new driver in near future. C did not tell applicant would be made redundant. C did not explain matters clearly and applicant and A inferred applicant would be made redundant. Applicant resigned from employment. No dismissal.;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - GOOD FAITH – PENALTY: Respondent should have told applicant of trial and its effects in more formal setting, given applicant opportunity to ask questions and notice of meeting. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent not discussing trial in more effective manner with applicant. Respondent did not attempt to contact applicant after angrily left room until applicant requested letter two days later. Respondent could have rectified misunderstanding if had met with applicant soon after meeting. Respondent breached good faith obligations and unjustifiably disadvantaged applicant. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. No reimbursement of lost wages. $1,000 compensation appropriate. Respondent’s breach of good faith obligations relatively minor. No penalty. |
| Result | Applications granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,000) ; Applications dismissed (unjustified dismissal, good faith and penalty) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1);ERA s4(1)(b);ERA s4(1A);ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s4A;ERA s4(4);ERA s4(4)(d);ERA s4(4)(e);ERA s103A;ERA s124 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_150.pdf [pdf 243 KB] |