| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 177 |
| Hearing date | 9 Dec 2010 - 9 Feb 2011 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 21 August 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | G Steele ; P Macdonald |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Savage v Tui Campers Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Abandonment – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s response to applicant’s complaint and constructively dismissed by respondent - Authority found applicant only raised one complaint with respondent relating to behaviour of colleagues before applicant decided to resign – Found actions of respondent and respondent’s employees could have been inconsiderate and caused applicant offence but not dismissive or repudiatory – Found warning issued by respondent not linked to events applicant claimed led to resignation - No dismissal - No unjustified disadvantage - Detailer |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as detailer. Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s response to applicant’s complaint and constructively dismissed by respondent. Respondent claimed conducted investigation after received applicant’s complaint but applicant resigned before investigation completed. Respondent claimed applicant effectively abandoned employment. Applicant claimed were series of incidents involving children of respondent’s owners removing items from applicant’s bag in tearoom and interrupting applicant’s discussion with other employees. Applicant claimed respondent did not adequately address applicant’s complaint had been sexually harassed by co-worker (“X”) but applicant had reluctantly agree to outcome of respondent’s investigation. Applicant claimed second incident involving X led to X’s dismissal but applicant claimed X made redundant by respondent so easier for X to find other employment. Applicant claimed reduction of employees performing same duties as applicant meant applicant under more stress and increasing number of family of respondent’s owners employed. Applicant claimed further incidents involving children of respondent’s owners. Respondent claimed arranged meeting with applicant as concerned about applicant’s timekeeping. Applicant claimed called “stupid” by employee also child of respondent’s owners (“A”) and became frustrated and shouted at A. Applicant told by doctor unfit to return to work and told respondent three days later position untenable and resigned. Respondent denied applicant resigned and claimed as did not have further communication from applicant believed applicant had abandoned employment.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant only raised one complaint with respondent relating to behaviour of colleagues before applicant decided to resign. Respondent aware applicant had resigned. Consistent evidence of respondent’s other employees that applicant confrontational and incidents trivial. Incidents minor and took place over considerable period of time. Actions of respondent and respondent’s employees could have been inconsiderate and caused applicant offence but not dismissive or repudiatory. Warning issued by respondent not linked to events applicant claimed led to resignation. No dismissal. No unjustified disadvantage. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s122 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland etc Shop Employees etc IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd (1985) ERNZ Sel Cas 136 ; 2 NZLR 372;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 | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_177.pdf [pdf 175 KB] |