| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 32/05 |
| Hearing date | 10 Feb 2005 |
| Determination date | 04 March 2005 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | J Shingleton ; M Maharaj |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Melind v The Warehouse Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Alleged behaviour of managers caused resignation - Separate personal grievance alleged regarding written warning - Alleged respondent failed to maintain reasonably safe working environment - Applicant complained about unfair treatment and stress caused by managers - Alleged was treated differently and resources not taken into account when holding him responsible for missed deadlines - Alleged performance issues - Whether stress related to work - Feedback process was separate from disciplinary process - Verbal and physical incident with customer - Applicant issued formal warning - Following day handed in notice of resignation, alleging warning last straw" - Respondent could not be criticised for enforcing its standards in relation to the incident by issuing the written warning - Finding undermined constructive dismissal claim - Applicant had stated behaviour of managers improved after area manager's involvement - Incidents of allegedly abusive behaviour relied on as breaches of duty predated area manager's involvement so could no longer be said to have caused resignation - Rather applicant resigned because thought should have been commended not disciplined for incident involving customer - No breach of duty by respondent over survey - No other breaches of obligations - No constructive dismissal - Team leader" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Attorney-General v Gilbert [2002] 1 ERNZ 31 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |