| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 378 |
| Hearing date | 18 Sep 2012 |
| Determination date | 19 October 2012 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | A Taylor ; P Diver |
| Location | Rotorua |
| Parties | Steele v Barkers Park Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal – GOOD FAITH - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged as respondent’s vehicle applicant used no longer available, respondent contracted out applicant’s responsibilities without consultation and respondent failed to fully investigate disciplinary matters - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent and respondent breached good faith obligations – Authority found applicant resigned – Found applicant’s employment not terminated on redundancy grounds and no grounds to consider whether respondent failed to fulfil good faith requirements relating to respondent restructure – No dismissal – Found applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by unavailability of respondent’s vehicle – Found no evidence applicant’s employment involved training of dogs owned by members of public – Found applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decision to contract out training of dogs owned by members of public – Found applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to fully investigate allegations – Found respondent did not breach good faith obligations by failing to deal with personal grievances properly or responding with “punitive action” - Department Manager |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as department manager. Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged as respondent’s vehicle applicant used no longer available, respondent contracted out applicant’s responsibilities without consultation and respondent failed to fully investigate disciplinary matters. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent and respondent breached good faith obligations. Respondent claimed applicant resigned from employment and denied applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged. Applicant initially employed by another company (“M”) to work on project that commercially viable dog show would be set up (“first project”). Respondent appointed employee (“K”) to investigate what was happening with project. K claimed told by respondent to close first project and devise new “dog world” project (“second project”). First project would be included in second project if shown to be financially viable. K claimed all first project employees including applicant were offered new employment with respondent. Applicant claimed as vehicle applicant had previously used to transport dogs became unavailable purchased own vehicle for purpose. Applicant’s employment agreement (“EA”) stated applicant would have use of company vehicle or alternatively applicant would reimburse transport costs. K told respondent employees would contract out training of dogs owned by members of public to third party (“D”) and respondent could apply for training role with D. K claimed not required to consult with applicant prior to making decision as applicant’s EA stated applicant would train respondent’s dogs, not dogs owned by members of public. Applicant successfully applied for trainer role with D. K claimed applicant met with K and asked if could undertake both role at respondent and role at D (“meeting”). K claimed told applicant not possible as believed both roles fulltime. K claimed applicant resigned at meeting and did not tell K role at D not fulltime. Applicant requested exit package and claimed package was to cover additional expenses including purchase of own vehicle. K discovered after applicant’s employment terminated some of respondent’s property missing. K claimed applicant abused respondent employee and took missing property. K wrote to applicant about allegations but decided would not take further action as applicant’s employment terminated.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - GOOD FAITH: Applicant resigned at meeting and did not tell K position at D not fulltime. Applicant’s employment not terminated on redundancy grounds and no grounds to consider whether respondent failed to fulfil good faith requirements relating to respondent restructure. Applicant voluntarily resigned from employment. No dismissal. After respondent vehicle no longer available applicant made no attempt to apply for refund of transport costs and respondent had refunded applicant’s personal petrol costs although no requirement in parties’ EA. Applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by unavailability of respondent’s vehicle. No evidence applicant’s employment involved training of dogs owned by members of public. Applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decision to contract training of dogs owned by members of public. At time respondent wrote to applicant about allegations applicant had resigned. Respondent did not investigate concerns but no evidence applicant’s employment disadvantaged and respondent continued to be paid until end of notice period. Applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to fully investigate allegations. Respondent did not breach good faith obligations by failing to deal with personal grievances properly or responding with “punitive action.” |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(c)(i);ERA s4(c)(ii);ERA s103(1)(b) |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_378.pdf [pdf 236 KB] |