| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 42A/07 |
| Hearing date | 6 Mar 2007 - 29 May 2007 (4 days) |
| Determination date | 23 August 2007 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | P Churchman ; P Kiely, J Tait, M Patterson |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Selwood v Queen Margaret College Incorporated |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - BREACH OF CONTRACT - Applicant claimed respondent removed IT management responsibilities, and threatened redundancy if did not accept new job description – Respondent introduced structured IT management system – Sought to have applicant take near full time teaching load - Applicant resigned – Authority found IT management responsibilities informal part of role only – Essence of job remained same - Did not amount to significant change to applicant’s terms and conditions – Obligation to consult in employment agreement not triggered - No disadvantage in respect of teaching load, or requirement to move offices - No failure to acknowledge applicant's specialist skills - Respondent entitled to introduce management system - Applicant not entitled press for lightening of teaching load or keep responsibilities – Respondent not obliged to accede to his wishes - Letter from principal (“C”), mentioning redundancy, indicated termination of applicant’s employment imminent if did not sign job description – Constituted breach of obligation to give notice and caused disadvantage – Unjustified disadvantage - Applicant claimed constructive dismissal - Principal (“C”) went to considerable effort to discuss applicant’s concerns and attempt to resolve them – Claimed disadvantaged by way incidents involving deputy principal and student handled - Neither incident constituted breach of duty or handled unfairly or unsatisfactorily - Also claimed denied support person at non-disciplinary meetings - Requirement for support person less fundamental when meetings non-disciplinary - No course of conduct with deliberate and dominant purpose of coercing resignation – Cumulative effect of respondent's conduct did not amount to breach of duty founding constructive dismissal - No constructive dismissal – Applicant’s allegations respondent took retribution against witnesses dismissed - Remedies - Applicant claimed illness caused by stress as result of respondent's conduct, or stress masked symptoms of illness until became terminal - Evidence supporting claim sparse, and could be no more than speculative - ICT teacher and administrator |
| Result | Application dismissed (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application granted (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000)(Disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s114 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW [1994] 2 NZLR 415 ; [1994] 1 ERNZ 168;Auckland Shop Employees IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 372;Business Distributors Ltd v Patel [2001] ERNZ 124 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 38 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 42a_07.pdf [pdf 112 KB] |