| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 140/06 |
| Hearing date | 7 Mar 2006 |
| Determination date | 27 April 2006 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | A Drake ; R France |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Larsen v Parfums Christian Dior (New Zealand) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Alleged constructive dismissal and then actual dismissal during notice period - Applicant claimed respondent unilaterally removed some of her duties, failed to provide safe workplace and excluded her from parts of business - Duties changed with applicant's knowledge and agreement - Applicant stressed but increase in workload partially due to voluntarily covering other positions - Not all stress due to respondent's conduct - Correspondence demonstrated applicant not excluded from day to day interactions - No evidence applicant indicated to management she was considering resigning unless concerns addressed - No breach of duty to provide safe workplace - After resigning applicant thanked manager for assistance and support - No constructive dismissal - Applicant gave four weeks notice and claimed general manager (GM) indicated she could work out notice - That evening applicant was rung at home and informed that as she was going to competitor she was to clear desk and return company property the next day - Respondent argued applicant agreed to waiver of notice period but Authority disagreed - If conflict of interest likely it would have been simple for GM to meet with applicant, explain situation and arrange dignified exit, including formal announcement of departure - Unjustified dismissal - Remedies - Applicant had been paid for notice period - Restricted to compensation for hurt and humiliation caused by terminating employment early, not for stress or illness applicant may have suffered prior to that point - DISPUTE - Applicant claimed entitled to full bonus payment, not partial payment offered by respondent - Respondent claimed bonus calculated on its assessment of applicant's achievements and she had previously accepted performance criteria not met - No requirement in employment agreement that parties agree on level of bonus but inherent in such agreements that reasonable level of consultation take place and fair assessment be made in absence of agreement - Possibility of lesser payment envisaged by employment agreement and justified here - In absence of evidence to contrary, level of bonus offered by respondent accepted as reasonable assessment of applicant's performance - Length of service one year 10 months - Business Development Manager |
| Abstract | Application dismissed (Constructive dismissal) ; Application granted (Unjustified dismissal during notice period) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,500) ; Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Dimond Industries, a division of Fletcher Challenge Steel Ltd v Dravitzki unreported, Travis J, 13 November 1998, WC 70/98 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 140_06.pdf [pdf 43 KB] |