| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Auckland 374 |
| Hearing date | 16-Aug-16 |
| Determination date | 15 November 2016 |
| Member | T Tetitaha |
| Representation | H White ; D Organ |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | van der Net v Texco International Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by collusion of directors to remove applicant from position– Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – PENALTY – GOOD FAITH – Applicant sought penalty for respondent’s breaches of good faith – Sales manager |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Insufficient evidence to conclude that directors colluding to end applicant’s employment. Other employee not brought in to replace applicant. Other employee’s behaviour not inappropriate or calculated to cause applicant’s resignation. Respondent entitled to start disciplinary process about applicant’s secret recording of meeting. No evidence of bias by decision-maker. No unjustified disadvantage. Applicant’s resignation not reasonably foreseeable. No dismissal.PENALTY – GOOD FAITH: No breach of good faith. No penalty. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c) ; ERA s160(2) |
| Cases Cited | D’Arcy Smith v Natural Habitats Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 123 ; Keepa v Go Bus Transport Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 180 ; Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 (CA) ; Yan v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZEmpC 36 ; Yan v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZCA 401 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Auckland_374.pdf [pdf 202 KB] |