| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 277 |
| Hearing date | 23 Nov 2012 |
| Determination date | 18 December 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | S Thomas ; M Green |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Long v Green t/a Petmart |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Authority found applicant ended employment when applicant elected to be put on notice – No dismissal - Found applicant did not contend breach of duty by respondent resulting in applicant’s departure – Found respondent’s conduct towards applicant not dismissive or repudiatory - No constructive dismissal - Shop Assistant |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as shop assistant. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant worked at shop alongside respondent’s wife (“G”). Applicant claimed respondent frequently yelled at applicant over phone and harassed applicant over religious beliefs. Due to alleged difficult working relationship with G applicant relocated to second shop where worked alongside respondent. Applicant claimed suffered multiple verbal attacks and criticisms of applicant’s performance by respondent. Applicant moved back to first store. During phone conversation about applicant’s responsibility to report pricing irregularities, respondent claimed told applicant to undertake to improve methods or be put on notice by respondent. Respondent claimed told by applicant to put applicant on notice after which respondent asked applicant to pass phone to G. Applicant claimed shocked by telephone conversation and decided to be put on notice although considered notice unwarranted. Applicant claimed after speaking to respondent G advised applicant not to work out notice period and return work uniform. Applicant claimed dismissed. G claimed applicant not dismissed as respondent did not tell G applicant dismissed. G claimed did not tell applicant not to work out applicant’s notice as applicant not given notice. Alternatively, applicant claimed constructively dismissed. Applicant claimed bullied about applicant’s performance without respondent following fair process.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant ended employment when applicant elected to be put on notice. No dismissal. Applicant did not contend breach of duty by respondent which resulted in applicant’s departure. Respondent’s conduct towards applicant not dismissive or repudiatory. Respondent did not embark on disciplinary process and entitled to raise concerns about applicant’s performance. Alleged religious harassment not serious enough to support claim of constructive dismissal. No constructive dismissal. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s122 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland etc Shop Employees etc IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd (1985) ERNZ Sel Cas 136 ; [1985] 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;Z v A [1993] 2 ERNZ 469 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_277.pdf [pdf 163 KB] |