| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Auckland 124 |
| Hearing date | 18 Dec 2014 |
| Determination date | 04 May 2015 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | M Smyth ; S Langton |
| Parties | Sleeth v Bromley Park Hatcheries Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by change in duties and hours and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent– PENALTY – GOOD FAITH – Applicant sought penalty for respondent’s breach of good faith and employment agreement (“EA”) by changing applicant’s duties and hours without consultation or notice, failing to provide adequate training, failing to provide opportunity to comment on information adverse to applicant’s employment and failing to actively try to maintain productive employment relationship – Hatchery worker and sexor |
| Abstract | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent failed to communicate with applicant regarding proposal adverse to applicant’s employment. Respondent breached duties of good faith. Respondent breached EA by unilaterally changing applicant’s hours without consultation. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to communicate and unilateral change in hours. Respondent did not breach EA by failing to provide adequate training immediately, as respondent planned to provide training within two years. Applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to provide training. Respondent wanted applicant to stay but applicant did not engage about other options. Respondent’s breaches not continued or fundamental so applicant not constructively dismissed. Applicant resigned of own will. No dismissal. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $334 reimbursement of lost wages. $2,000 compensation appropriate.PENALTY – GOOD FAITH: Respondent’s breach of EA serious enough to justify penalty. Breach of good faith not so deliberate, sustained or serious to justify penalty. $1,000 penalty appropriate. |
| Result | Applications granted (unjustified disadvantage)(penalty-good faith); Reimbursement of lost wages ($334.87) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) ; Penalty ($1,000)(payable to applicant) ; Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(4);ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s124;ERA s134(1) ;;ERA s125;ERA s136;ERA s174E |
| Cases Cited | Hwang v Boyne Company Ltd t/a Goodday Newspaper [2004] 2 ERNZ 412 (EmpC);New Institute of Fashion Technology v Aitken [2004] 2 ERNZ 340 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Auckland_124.pdf [pdf 327 KB] |