| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 2/06 |
| Hearing date | 29 Aug 2005 - 18 Oct 2005 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 10 January 2006 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | M Ryan ; S Langton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Fox v General Distributors Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Applicant resigned after two formal warnings - First warning issued following applicant's failure to ensure that butchery stock removed from display cabinet prior to best before" date - Matter dealt with by respondent in accordance with best procedural practice and grounds for issuing disciplinary warning existed - First warning justified - Second and final warning issued because on particular day at 10am display cabinet was found to have poor coverage of meat - Thorough and fair investigation - Obligation in respect of displaying meat was key accountability of job and particular standards to be achieved had been made clear to applicant a few months earlier at performance appraisal - Respondent entitled to have regard to earlier warning when deciding upon disciplinary action to be taken - Applicant alleged warning was "final" because of situation regarding applicant's non-use of computers - Previously applicant had delegated computer tasks to assistant but respondent told him he could no longer delegate - Applicant produced medical certificate confirming he suffered "anxiety complex" relating to computers - Once medical diagnosis revealed, applicant relieved of any requirement to use computer while problem remained under investigation - Respondent was still deciding what to do about computer problem when second and final warning issued - Applicant subsequently resigned - Reasonable for respondent to expect applicant as manager to perform all functions and duties of position including computer use - Applicant could have resorted to disputes procedure in employment agreement about computer problem rather than resigning - Personal grievance claims could not be upheld - Butchery manager" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 s73;ERA s4;ERA s4A;ERA s103A;ERA s160(3);HSE |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand Institute of Fashion Technology v Aitken [2004] 2 ERNZ 340;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 2_06.pdf [pdf 58 KB] |