| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 226/04 |
| Hearing date | 17 Jun 2004 |
| Determination date | 06 July 2004 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | DJ Reynolds (in person) ; H Sidhu |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Reynolds v The Natural Pet Treat Company Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant initially employed as factory manager/PA but later changed to packer position - Dispute over whether change in position applicant or respondent's idea - Cover letter to new employment agreement contained statement that applicant accepted had no claim against respondent - Applicant told respondent production specifications unachievable - Did not return to work - Cover letter could not have operated to limit applicant's ability to bring personal grievance - No unjustified dismissal from factory manager/PA position - No constructive dismissal from packer position - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - No evidence of unjustifiable action - Even if proposition of changing job was put to applicant, would not have been unfair or unreasonable - DISCRIMINATION - Alleged discrimination because respondent asked about family circumstances - Some evidence applicant discussed picking children up from ferry and impact on start time - Nothing to indicate discussion inappropriate - No discrimination - Noted that respondent failed to comply with s64 Employment Relations Act 2000 - PA/Factory manager/Packer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s64;ERA s105 |
| Cases Cited | Martin v Browning & Van Dyk [2003] 2 ERNZ 416 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |