| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 243 |
| Hearing date | 19 - 20 Aug 2013 |
| Determination date | 28 November 2013 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | N Ironside ; D Erickson |
| Parties | Rodkiss v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's actions and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Performance issues raised with applicant regarding planning and structure in maintenance department, lack of decisive decision making and timeliness issues – Applicant given performance improvement plan (‘PIP’) – Applicant covertly recorded subsequent PIP meetings – Applicant sought amendments to PIP – Applicant refused to sign PIP - Respondent advised PIP not disciplinary in nature – Applicant emailed amended PIP – Applicant indicated unaware of significant loss of production time – Applicant shouted at – Applicant invited to investigation meeting – Applicant maintained unwilling to sign PIP – Parties attended mediation – Applicant resigned – Respondent withdrew PIP process same day as resignation - Engineering manager |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: PIP never implemented. PIP unresolved issue between parties. Applicant could not be disadvantaged by PIP. PIP did not enable respondent to short circuit performance process and disciplinary policy. Performance meeting and PIP not disciplinary sanction. Some performance issues informally raised before applicant given PIP. No evidence PIP driven to exit applicant from respondent. Fair and reasonable to improve/develop applicant in limited aspects. Initiation of disciplinary process not disadvantage. No misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to PIP bur respondent failed to be responsive and communicative in relation to applicant’s concerns about PIP. Respondent failed to follow guidelines and failed to consult applicant about change to guidelines. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondents actions. Respondent wanted applicant to stay in position. Respondent’s breaches not fundamental or repudiatory in nature. No dismissal. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $6,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103(1)(b) – ERA s103A – ERA s103A(3)(a) - ERA s103A(3)(b) - ERA s103A(3)(c) - ERA s103A(3)(d) - ERA s103A(4) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland etc Shop Employees etc IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd (1985) ERNZ Sel Cas 136 ; [1985] 2 NZLR 372;Bagchi v Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department (2008) 5 NZELR 767;Nimon & Sons Ltd v Buckley unreported, Couch J, 5 Oct 2007, WC26/07;Rodkiss v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [2013] NZERA Christchurch 172;Sky Network Television Ltd v Duncan [1998] 3 ERNZ 917;Tranz Rail Ltd v Rail & Maritime Transport Union (Inc) [1999] 1 ERNZ 460 |
| Number of Pages | 38 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_243.pdf [pdf 398 KB] |