| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 179/06 |
| Hearing date | 25 Oct 2006 |
| Determination date | 20 December 2006 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | P Brown ; L Penno |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Holding v Design and Arts College of New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Constructive dismissal - Applicant claimed respondent attempted to alter terms of employment - Respondent submitted changes agreed to and benefited applicant - Applicant paid significantly less than others in same position - Respondent claimed reflected unique employment terms - Applicant alleged respondent did not address concerns and considered relationship deteriorated further after supported colleague with personal grievance - Authority did not accept managing director (MD") lied to applicant about intention to purchase respondent - MD asked applicant if intended to resign - Words ill-judged but not coercion when placed in context - Applicant had resigned twice before when dissatisfied with employment - MD felt had to accept third resignation as applicant not committed to new business vision - Decision not to seek to change applicant's mind understandable - Changing workplace and occasional unpleasantness between parties did not create unsafe environment - Allegation respondent failed to preserve employment relationship completely without merit - No evidence to support contention of direct discrimination against union members - Respondent raised 90 day issue - Authority did not accept that every breach which might ground constructive dismissal allegation must be subject of separately raised personal grievance - Only one breach or unjustified action by respondent - Failure to consult when business sold - No evidence applicant disadvantaged - Resignation not coerced - Although applicant regularly mentioned being under pressure, no evidence told employer unwell because of it - Not unreasonable stress - Work not intrinsically unsafe - No requirement employer rebut presumption of dismissal in constructive dismissal case - No constructive dismissal - Length of service 7ï¾½ years - Faculty director" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Attorney-General v Gilbert [2002] 1 ERNZ 31 ; [2002] 2 NZLR 342;Wellington, Taranaki and Marlborough Clerical etc IUOW v Greenwich (t/a Greenwich and Associates Employment Agency and Complete Fitness Centre) [1983] ACJ 965;Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd [1982] ICR 666 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 179_06.pdf [pdf 50 KB] |