| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 114/06 |
| Hearing date | 30 May 2006 |
| Determination date | 02 August 2006 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | T McGinn ; J Shingleton |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Ponsonby v Torlesse Wines Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Applicant worked from home as wine sales representative - Respondent in poor financial position, believed urgent changes necessary - Respondent concerned about applicant's sales and reporting - Requested applicant immediately change from home base to warehouse and purchase cell phone on behalf of respondent - Respondent introduced changes to way applicant worked and conducted performance meeting - Applicant claimed meeting traumatic" - Also saw newspaper advertisement for salesperson at respondent - Applicant took stress leave - Claimed subjected to course of conduct by respondent breaching its duty to provide fair and reasonable treatment and safe workplace - Respondent claimed resigned following reasonable performance management of sales level - Authority satisfied resignation attributable to respondent's actions rather than other reasons - Meeting not abusive or so unreasonable to conclude conducted in dismissive or repudiatory manner - Entitled to raise performance concerns and advise wanted improvement - On balance of probabilities no deliberate attempt to mislead applicant about advertisement or that additional salesperson sought to replace her - Insensitive letter to applicant on stress leave not actions of fair and reasonable employer - Not acknowledging concerns raised by applicant after meeting not repudiatory conduct - Communications while on stress leave not blanket disregard of obligation to provide safe work environment - No course of conduct with dominant purpose of coercing resignation - Breaches not sufficiently serious to make substantial risk of resignation reasonably foreseeable - No constructive dismissal - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Respondent made too many demands and changes overwhelming applicant - Disadvantaged by changes including request to work at warehouse and purchase cell phone - Led applicant to believe was absence of trust in her - No consultation - Should not have sent letter pressuring applicant about performance while on stress leave - Unjustified disadvantage - Length of service one year one month - Sales representative" |
| Result | Application dismissed (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application granted (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,500) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s122 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland etc Shop Employees etc IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] ERNZ Sel Cases 136 ; [1985] 2 NZLR 372 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 114_06.pdf [pdf 56 KB] |