| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 177/06 |
| Hearing date | 12 Sep 2006 |
| Determination date | 15 December 2006 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | J Goldstein ; M Maling |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Maunder v Restaurant Brands Ltd |
| Summary | BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant suffered depressive illness – Alleged caused by breaches of duty by respondent – Submitted Attorney-General v Gilbert (cited below) confirmed five distinct implied contractual obligations – Respondent accepted first three implied duties but did not accept all duties explicitly held as being implied terms - Authority accepted last two duties not required to be considered as separate implied duties – Rather, were obligations that stemmed from the duties respondent accepted it had in relationship with applicant - Respondent owed applicant first three implied terms from Gilbert and the statutory obligations in Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 – Authority not satisfied evidence established on balance of probabilities that applicant directly notified respondent not coping, or gave any clear indication suffering stress as result of work pressures – Applicant’s job not considered intrinsically stressful – Respondent did not know, nor ought it to have known, of any particular problem or vulnerability about applicant as employee before she commenced leave – Respondent took reasonable care and all practicable steps to provide safe workplace for applicant who, in absence of clear evidence to contrary, they were entitled to assume could cope with normal pressures of job – No breach of duties and obligations that respondent had to applicant to ensure safe working environment – Claim for breach of employment agreement unsuccessful - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Breach of contractual obligation pleaded in alternative as personal grievance could not succeed – Unjustified action when area manager invited applicant to meeting without advising her of allegations she was facing – Authority did not consider applicant disadvantaged by unjustified action because allegations subsequently put to her in writing and she was given opportunity to explain – No disciplinary action as result of allegations – No unjustified disadvantage - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant on sick leave for 10 months – Substantive grounds on basis of long term illness to terminate employment and dismissal procedurally fair – Dismissal justified – Length of service three years 10 months – Manager, Pizza Restaurant |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;HSE;HSE s2(1);HSE s2A;HSE s2A(2);Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act 2002;Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act 2002 s4(8) |
| Cases Cited | Attorney-General v Gilbert [2002] 1 ERNZ 31 ; [2002] 2 NZLR 342;Commissioner of Police v Cartwright [2000] 2 ERNZ 106 ; [2001] 1 NZLR 265 (CA);Gilbert v Attorney-General in respect of the Chief Executive of the Department of;Corrections [2000] 1 ERNZ 332;Hatton v Sutherland [2002] 2 All ER 1 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 19 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 177_06.pdf [pdf 112 KB] |