| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 116/07 |
| Hearing date | 13 Nov 2006 |
| Determination date | 23 April 2007 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | J Peebles ; K Stretton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Mathieson v Kaituna Pastoral Farms Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Respondent had number of concerns about applicant's performance - Applicant not promoted to manager as promised - However, failure justified to extent it took into account his unwillingness to carry out full range of managerial duties - Respondent did not seek response from applicant before issued performance warning, although applicant should not have been so dismissive of respondent's earlier informal approach - Seriously flawed procedure - Entitled to $3,000 compensation - Not persuaded promotion would have gone ahead but for warning and associated concerns - No further award appropriate - No basis for allegation applicant harassed" to sign new employment agreement - Applicant also claimed disadvantaged when leave request granted and later withdrawn - Authority not persuaded amounted to disadvantage grievance - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Parties and representatives met to discuss employment problems - Suggestion applicant draft job description reasonable starting point for addressing issues - Applicant took view because unsuccessful in negotiating exit package during meeting matters at stalemate and employment over - Applicant became disruptive and uncooperative - Failed to respond to respondent's queries over several weeks or provide job description discussed at meeting - Further meeting resulted in applicant being demoted and required to report daily to manager - Applicant considered demotion a repudiation of employment agreement and resigned - Demotion repudiatory conduct - Circumstances amounted to dismissal - However, respondent had gone as far as it could in attempting to resolve issues between parties - Reasonable grounds to conclude applicant could not continue in role - Dismissal justified - ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Parties agreed applicant owed wages and holiday pay - Interest 7.9 percent - RECOVERY OF MONIES - Authority not persuaded parties agreed on costs associated with dogs or phone rental - Unclear how purchase of farm bike would be recognised - Applicant received higher salary than agreed and likely increase recognised purchase - No entitlement to additional payment - Applicant attempted to claim bonus on behalf of other staff - Not authorised to do this and no order made - Farm manager" |
| Result | Application granted (Disadvantage, arrears) ; Compensation of humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Arrears of wages and holiday pay (Quantum to be determined) ; Interest (7.9%) ; Application dismissed (Dismissal, recovery of monies) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103(1)(b) |
| Number of Pages | 18 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 116_07.pdf [pdf 79 KB] |