Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2016] NZERA Auckland 107
Hearing date 16-Nov-15
Determination date 07 April 2016
Member Vicki Campbell
Representation T Marsh (in person) ; R Upton
Location Auckland
Parties Marsh v Smail & Compant Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions – Applicant claimed constructively dismissed by respondent – Technical support
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent did not fabricate abusive emails. Respondent raised genuine performance concerns. No bullying and intimidation. Applicant had no flexibility in hours of work. Respondent acted as fair and reasonable employer in all circumstances. No unjustified disadvantage. Respondent did not coerce applicant into resignation. No breach of any duties owed. No constructive dismissal.
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(5);ERA s174E
Cases Cited Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 160, [2011] ERNZ 466;Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers Industrial Union Of Workers (Inc) [1994] 2 NZLR 415 (CA), [1994] 1 ERNZ 168;Auckland Shop Employees IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 372 (CA);Wellington, Taranaki and Marlborough Clerical IUOW v Greenwich (t/a Greenwich and Associates Employment Agency and Complete Fitness Centre) [1983] ACJ 965 (AC)
Number of Pages 19
PDF File Link: 2016_NZERA_Auckland_107.pdf [pdf 296 KB]