| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 175 |
| Hearing date | 9 Apr 2013 - 10 Apr 2013 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 28 August 2013 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | G Cooper, S Hutchings ; P Cowey, C Corlett |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Miller v Springfree New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Whether grievance raised within 90 days - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's actions - Applicant claimed respondent failed to provide employment agreement, failed to reimburse money owing, failed to investigate applicant's complaints and failed to allow applicant leave entitlements - Applicant claimed respondent failed to consult on proposed change to applicant's role - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Applicant claimed course of conduct by respondent coerced applicant to resign - Alleged corruption and unsafe work place - Anxiety and stress - BREACH OF CONTRACT - Applicant claimed respondent breached agreement to pay applicant annual hardship allowance and end of term contract bonus - Whether unconditional agreement existed - Part performance - PENALTY - Applicant sought penalty for respondent's failure to keep proper time and wage records - Engineer |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Multiple claims of disadvantage. Not all raised within 90 days.;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Earlier negotiated documents dealt with salary and leave, email correspondence clarified terms and parties were working towards agreement. No unjustified disadvantage by respondent's failure to provide written employment agreement. Not every omission or difficulty in employment amounted to unjustified action. No unjustified disadvantage by respondent's failure to immediately reimburse applicant. No evidence respondent failed to investigate applicant's complaints or did not allow leave entitlements. No unjustified disadvantage relating to above claims but applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's failure to consult applicant regarding role change. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $5,000 compensation appropriate.;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent required to take reasonable steps to safeguard applicants health at work. Known to respondent applicant unhappy at work but applicant did not establish respondent breached obligation to provide safe and healthy workplace. No breach that made resignation reasonably foreseeable. No course of conduct followed with deliberate and dominant purpose of coercing applicant's resignation. No unjustified dismissal.;BREACH OF CONTRACT: No part performance of contract. No unconditional agreement reached that respondent pay applicant hardship and termination bonus. No breach of contract.;PENALTY. Applicant outside time period for commencing penalty action. No penalty. |
| Result | Applications partially granted; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s63(a) - ERA s64 - ERA s103(1)(b) - ERA s103 - ERA s114 - ERA s135(1) - ERA s135(b) - Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 s6 |
| Cases Cited | Attorney General v Gilbert [2002] 1 ERNZ 31; [2002] 2 NZLR 342;Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW Inc [1994] 1 ERNZ 168; [1994] 2 NZLR 415;Auckland Shop Employees Union v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd (1985) ERNZ Sel Cas 136; [1985] 2 NZLR 372;Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] ERNZ 517;Meyer v Ports of Auckland unreported, Shaw J, 28 July 2004, AC41/04;Miller v Springfree New Zealand & Anor [2012] NZERA Christchurch 204;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 34 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_175.pdf [pdf 379 KB] |