| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Christchurch 193 |
| Hearing date | 2 and 3 Aug 2016 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 28 October 2016 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | S Zindel ; K Chapman |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Ewing v Waimea Weekly Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Incapacity - Applicant claimed she was unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s treatment resulting in unsafe workplace - Applicant claimed she was unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Alleged bullying by managing director of respondent - RECOVERY OF MONIES - Applicant sought recovery of cost for medical consultations - COUNTERCLAIM - PENALTY - Respondent claimed applicant breached good faith by removing data from work computer and by failing to be communicative and responsive |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority ordered non publication of statements of evidence. Respondent knew or ought to have known about applicant suffering from work-related stress due to managing director’s behaviour. Managing director’s treatment of applicant was unreasonable with elements of bullying. Respondent did not investigate applicant’s concerns or put anything in place to prevent behaviour occurring again. Respondent breached its duty to take reasonable steps to provide safe workplace. Respondent’s approach to performance concerns antithetical to fair and reasonable process. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to provide safe workplace. Fair and reasonable employer could and should have considered whether there were alternative solutions to termination. Applicant not properly advised that employment may be terminated for reason of medical incapacity and did not have opportunity to respond. Dismissal procedurally and substantively unfair. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $18,000 reimbursement of lost wages. $12,000 compensation appropriate.RECOVERY OF MONIES: Applicant entitled to be reimbursed for medical consultations when material cause of work stress was manging director’s treatment of applicant. Respondent to pay applicant $102.50 recovery of monies.COUNTERCLAIM - PENALTY: Not sufficient evidence to conclude applicant sanitised computer or deliberately deleted emails other than to comply with company policy. No penalty |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A - ERA s103A(3) - ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Attorney-General v Gilbert [2002] 2 NZLR 342 (CA);Davis v Commissioner of Police [2013] NZEmpC 226 |
| Number of Pages | 33 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Christchurch_193.pdf [pdf 280 KB] |