| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 31/04 |
| Hearing date | 16 Jan 2004 |
| Determination date | 21 January 2004 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | H Thorpe ; H Kynaston |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | McCosh v National Bank of New Zealand |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Refused instruction to put surname on emails sent to customers - Given warning for refusal to carry out instructions in relation to customer phone calls - Because of refusal to put surname on emails removed from roster for answering customer emails - No contractual entitlement to be on email roster - Reliance on Principle 11 Privacy Act 1993 to justify refusal - Even if Principle 11 applicable instruction to disclose surname clearly related to job requirements - Entitled to tell applicant how to do job provided request lawful and within ambit of employment agreement - Correct warning procedure - No unjustified disadvantage - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Resigned because unhappy - Mere unhappiness and discontent did not amount to constructive dismissal - No constructive dismissal - Direct Sales and Service Representative |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Privacy Act 1993 Principle 11 |
| Number of Pages | 2 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |