| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Christchurch 196 |
| Determination date | 27 November 2014 |
| Member | Christine Hickey |
| Representation | G Malone ; D Erickson |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Hartley 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 - Applicant claimed respondent unilaterally changed terms and conditions of employment. Applicant claimed respondent's bullying, intimidation and unacceptable behaviour caused stress, fear and indignity - Whether changes to applicant's employment so significant applicant should have been made redundant - New senior manager (C") appointed to improve site performance - C required applicant to attend morning meetings - C required applicant to be available to be contacted during evenings and weekends- Applicant claimed changes resulted in difficulty sleeping and stress - Applicant off work on sick leave - Manager" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant did not mention to respondent that C's management style and increased requirements causing stress until personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage raised. Parties' employment agreement provided applicant required to work additional hours from time to time. Applicant did not raise concerns about impact of early meetings until applicant so unwell he required time off. Requirement to attend meetings fair and reasonable. Avenues available for applicant to address concerns about C's management style. Applicant not personally targeted or subjected to bullying. Although applicant felt humiliated on occasion, applicant not victimised, intimidated or threatened by C. Respondent justified in attempting to lift performance. Applicant not entitled to insist respondent declare him redundant. Applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's actions. Applicant failed to spell out to respondent what applicant considered to be cause of stress and subsequent illness. Respondent not in breach of employment agreement. No constructive dismissal. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s103A;ERA s103A(1)(b);ERA s103A(3) |
| Cases Cited | Attorney-General v Gilbert [2002] 1 ERNZ 31; [2002] 2 NZLR 342;Auckland Provincial District Local Authority Officers IUOW v Auckland Electric Power Board [1992] 1 ERNZ 87;Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Wallis [1998] 3 ERNZ 984;Nilson-Reid v Attorney-General in respect of the Director-General of the Department of Conservation [2005] ERNZ 951;Pilgrim v Director-General New Zealand Department of Health [1992] 3 ERNZ 190;Wellington, Taranaki & Marlborough Clerical etc IUOW v Greenwich V.V. & C.F. (t/a Greenwich & Associates Employment Agency & Complete Fitness Centre) [1983] ACJ 965 ; (1983) ERNZ Sel Cas 95 |
| Number of Pages | 19 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Christchurch_196.pdf [pdf 294 KB] |