| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 255 |
| Hearing date | 27-28 Aug 2013 |
| Determination date | 17 December 2013 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | J Goldstein ; P MacDonald |
| Parties | George v Nurse Maude District Nursing Service |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Whether applicant’s unjustified disadvantage grievance and grievance applicant actually dismissed raised within 90 days – Whether applicant dismissed after tendering resignation – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by announcement of resignation to respondent’s staff and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Whether respondent failed to provide safe workplace and breached duty of good faith – Whether respondent failed to minimise, eliminate or prevent workplace bullying by manager (“C”) – Whether C condescending and patronising, took personal credit for successes, micro-managed situations, failed to disseminate information properly, spoke to staff using unreasonable and unwarranted sarcasm, created climate of fear by passive aggression and had unpredictable mood changes – Whether applicant required to take responsibility for major contract – Whether C told applicant chief executive (“M”) thought applicant “cruising” – Applicant appointed employee to position without obtaining approval first – Whether C rolled eyes at applicant – Whether applicant offered to resign – Applicant told doctor planned to resign – Applicant offered different position after tendered resignation – Timeframe attached to offer – Applicant’s resignation announced to staff same day timeframe expired – Restructure – Service manager |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE: Authority ordered non-publication of details of applicant’s medical conditions except for specified matters. Grievance applicant actually dismissed after tendering resignation not raised within 90 days. Alternatively, announcement of applicant’s resignation not unjustified actual dismissal. Unjustified disadvantage grievance raised within 90 days.;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant did not raise clear complaint about C’s behaviour before applicant’s resignation that respondent could fairly and reasonably be expected to investigate. C unaware for two year period about applicant’s feelings about relationship. M’s suggestion C’s direct reports, including applicant, raise matters about C’s style with C directly what fair and reasonable employer could have done in circumstances involving group of senior managers. Fair and reasonable for M to make informal checks with C about C’s relationship with applicant. No evidence M knew applicant stressed and unwell because of C’s management before applicant’s resignation. C gave applicant opportunity to take responsibility for major contract but applicant could have declined to take on contract. C accepted use of term “cruising” poor and M cleared up any misunderstanding about term with applicant. No evidence applicant complained workload in managing major contract excessive. Resignation of other employees or interaction between C and other manager did not make workplace less safe for applicant. Blanket conclusion that all stress and environmental difficulties at time result of C’s management style not appropriate. Difficult to ascertain direct examples of C’s inappropriate behaviour towards applicant. Some matters described as micromanagement fell within reasonable management prerogative. No breach of respondent’s obligations leading to applicant’s resignation or breach of good faith. No constructive dismissal. Fair and reasonable employer could have been expected to confirm applicant did not want offered alternative position or make announcement of applicant’s resignation day after timeframe to accept new position expired. Fair and reasonable employer could be expected to talk to departing senior manager about communication to staff. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by unexpected announcement of applicant’s resignation. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $3,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Application partially granted (raising personal grievance) ; Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s122;ERA Second Schedule cl10(1);Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland etc Shop Employees etc IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd (1985) ERNZ Sel Cas 136 ; [1985] 2 NZLR 372;Gilbert v Attorney-General in respect of the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2000] 1 ERNZ 332;Waikato District Health Board v Clear [2010] NZCA 305 |
| Number of Pages | 25 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_255.pdf [pdf 262 KB] |