| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 230 |
| Hearing date | 13-14 Jun 2013 |
| Determination date | 08 November 2013 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | J Wilson ; J Latimer |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Roskam v ALSCO NZ Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Whether applicant sexually harassed by manager (“F”) – Whether respondent failed to investigate applicant’s claim adequately – F used bottle opener to form prominent phallic symbol while dressed as Santa during Christmas party (“Santa suit incident”) – Whether F rubbed pelvis against applicant inappropriately – Dispute over denial of applicant’s request for leave – Fraught interactions between applicant’s partner and respondent’s staff – Applicant’s partner issued with trespass notice – Police complaint – Respondent’s manager stated on counselling referral form believed applicant’s allegation baseless – Applicant charged with making false complaint – Charge withdrawn during hearing |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent acted on applicant’s information and sought to ascertain information’s veracity. Investigator failed to question applicant because applicant told respondent would not participate in investigatory process. Manager’s comments on counselling referral form unwise but manager’s reasons for making comments understandable and manager not part of decision making process. Not established respondent failed to investigate complaint properly. Applicant’s claims in respect to three incidents seriously undermined and some doubt must exist about claims’ veracity. No witnesses to one incident but not safe to find incident occurred given evidence tendered in respect of other three incidents. Santa suit incident orchestrated by group of female staff, F resisted approaches initially and applicant did not take offence at time. Even if applicant sexually harassed, applicant told colleague was resigning due to refusal of leave request. No unjustified disadvantage. No constructive dismissal. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| 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 | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_230.pdf [pdf 174 KB] |