| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 96/05 |
| Hearing date | 23 Aug 2004 - 15 Dec 2004 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 21 March 2005 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | M Lewis ; S Langton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hill v Pyrotek Products Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Alleged respondent followed course of conduct with deliberate or dominant purpose of coercing resignation - New manager (S") had different style to old manager - Alleged expressed intention to end employment of longer-serving employees - Further allegations about S's treatment of applicant - Ground not made out - Also alleged respondent breached duty to provide safe place of work by overloading applicant leading to stress - Old manager had helped out with applicant's workload when busy - Alleged insufficient training with computer programme needed for work - Did not raise problem of work-related stress until disciplinary procedure which led to warning - S became concerned about inventory - Investigation identified considerable inventory missing - Applicant asked to take responsibility for area of stock - Applicant indicated was making progress though was not doing so - S found applicant's explanations unacceptable - Applicant had failed in fundamental way to understand what was expected of him - Warning issued about applicant's inventory management - On special and sick leave - No breach of duty for alleged work overload and stress related illness - Warning justified" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 96_05.pdf [pdf 80 KB] |