| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 109 |
| Hearing date | 8 Oct 2012 - 21 Mar 2013 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 14 June 2013 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | J Goldstein ; P van Keulen |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Steadman v Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed respondent breached obligations in employment agreement to provide safe workplace – Events occurred in aftermath of Christchurch earthquake – Authority found respondent did everything possible within terms of information available to respondent to support applicant while applicant recovered from injury after falling from horse – Found applicant not treated unfairly during rehabilitation from injury – Found unreasonable for Authority to apply usual standard to respondent’s circumstances immediately after Christchurch earthquake – Found while conditions at temporary office less than ideal, conditions not hazardous – Found respondent did everything reasonably possible to ensure safe and healthy workplace within confines of situation after Christchurch earthquake – Found respondent met obligations in respect of applicant’s relationships with colleagues – Found applicant not constructively dismissed – Found no breach of respondent’s obligations to provide safe workplace and insufficient evidence any stress caused by applicant’s work – No breach of contract – Training and development manager |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as training and development manager. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant claimed respondent breached obligations in employment agreement (“EA”) to provide safe workplace. Applicant injured after fall from horse and at home when Christchurch earthquake struck. In aftermath of Christchurch earthquake respondent used chief executive’s (“T”) home as temporary office. One month later applicant sought medical advice and informed manager (“W”) about injury. Applicant issued with medical certificates providing for return to work on reduced hours. During further correspondence respondent sought clarification of applicant’s medical status and fitness to work. Applicant claimed expected to undertake full time role during recovery period and claimed management status being undermined. Applicant claimed respondent failed to follow injuries management and rehabilitation policy by preparing rehabilitation action plan. Applicant claimed subsequent performance review with W went badly and sent critical e-mail to W seeking recognition of stress applicant under. At further meeting between applicant, W and T respondent made suggestions to improve management part of applicant’s role, and agreed desk to be reserved for applicant one day each week. Parties agreed meeting positive. One month later applicant resigned. Applicant claimed constructively dismissed. Applicant claimed use of T’s home as office did not take into account health and safety implications and respondent failed to provide applicant with safe workplace. W denied not tolerating applicant’s criticisms of working conditions at T’s home and claimed dealt with any issues to best of respondent’s ability. Applicant claimed employee reporting to applicant (“M”) insubordinate and M’s behaviour not addressed by respondent.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – BREACH OF CONTRACT: Respondent starved of information about what could reasonably be expected of applicant from medical point of view. Would have been sensible for respondent to insist on own full medical assessment but respondent did not know full extent of applicant’s ill-health. Respondent did everything possible within terms of information available to respondent to support applicant appropriately while applicant recovered from injury. Nonsensical for applicant to expect anyone involved in Christchurch earthquake to operate on business as usual basis. No document called rehabilitation action plan existed but in particular circumstances sufficient for respondent to react to information provided by applicant and wrong for Authority to impose standard of perfection on respondent in exceptionally trying circumstances. Applicant not treated unfairly during rehabilitation from injury. Unreasonable for Authority to apply usual standard to circumstances of respondent seeking to look after customers immediately after Christchurch earthquakes. Delays in works unsurprising and steps identified in building survey to ameliorate safety issues attended to promptly. Conditions at T’s home less than ideal but not hazardous. Wealth of material suggesting respondent focused on emotional well-being of employees. Respondent acted appropriately when health and safety issues raised. Respondent did everything reasonably possible to ensure safe and healthy workplace within confines of situation post-Christchurch earthquake. Evidence suggested applicant’s complaints about relationship with M received prompt attention from W. Respondent met obligations in respect of applicant’s relationships with colleagues. Nothing in transcript of final meeting between applicant, W and T to suggest any residual unhappiness on applicant’s part or unwillingness on respondent’s part to address applicant’s concerns. Applicant not constructively dismissed. No breach of respondent’s obligations to provide safe workplace and insufficient evidence any stress caused by applicant’s work. No breach of contract. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 21 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_109.pdf [pdf 224 KB] |