| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 126 |
| Hearing date | 24 Feb 2014 - 25 Feb 2014 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 04 April 2014 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | W Reid ; P Shaw |
| Location | Tauranga |
| Parties | Barclay v Richmond Services Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - First written warning issued after complaints made about applicant's driving - Speeding - Second written warning issued after complaints about applicant's behaviour towards clients in supermarket - Argument with one client (A") - Applicant lost touch with other client ("B") in supermarket - Final written warning issued for falsifying timesheet - Applicant "rested eyes" because of medical condition but claimed payment for time - Applicant resigned during investigation into whether applicant bullied client ("C") - Community support worker" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Additional inquiries into allegations about applicant's driving not required in circumstances where applicant made admission of wrongdoing, accepted outcome of disciplinary process and did not suggest respondent interview other staff at time. Would have been better if decision-maker had interviewed complainant about applicant's behaviour towards clients in supermarket but respondent's process not invalidated. Appropriate for respondent to consider fact complaint about applicant's behaviour in supermarket made by outside complainant and no other complaints existed about staff dealing with A while shopping. No evidence of predetermination. Applicant acknowledged lost touch with B in supermarket. Respondent's handling of supermarket incidents appropriate. Nothing further for respondent to investigate regarding timesheet incident. Nothing inappropriate in way respondent tried to make clear applicant could not keep making mistakes leading to disciplinary outcomes. Appropriate for respondent to commence inquiries into complaint from C by seeking applicant's comment. Succession of disciplinary processes did not constitute bullying or represent conduct with dominant purpose of forcing applicant to resign. Respondent's conduct no more than endeavouring to investigate complaints about applicant. Respondent's investigation of complaint by C not final straw as respondent bound to investigate complaint, respondent attempted to make clear that investigation not disciplinary inquiry and no unreasonable delay in conducting investigation. Applicant's resignation not reasonably foreseeable. No constructive dismissal. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Pivott v Southern Adult Literacy Inc [2013] NZEmpC 236 |
| Number of Pages | 18 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_126.pdf [pdf 205 KB] |