| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 342/07 |
| Hearing date | 13 Aug 2007 |
| Determination date | 31 October 2007 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | M Dean ; G Pollak |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hazelden v Howick Village Optometrists Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Applicant alleged pressured to return to work before injury healed and faced unfair scrutiny upon return - Claimed respondent’s management of issues around injury, disciplinary action, and inquiry into data entry error required her to leave employment - Respondent made efforts to ascertain extent of injury and applicant’s absence - Although stressful for applicant, actions not unreasonable - No evidence to support claim returned to work too soon - Applicant received written warning after asked junior employee to run personal errand - Disciplinary process and warning deficient and Authority expressed concerns - However, no grievance raised in relation to it and matter not taken further - Received letter about another meeting to discuss data entry error - Nothing to indicate meeting disciplinary - Applicant took sick leave due to stress - Respondent claimed surprised at applicant’s health issues and sought indication when she would return - Applicant resigned - Given discrete nature of events and time involved, course of conduct designed to coerce resignation could not be established - No explanation why concerns not raised with respondent - Applicant could not conclude on basis of second letter that meeting could result in threat to employment - Follow up letters from respondent not unreasonable - As concerns not raised with respondent, difficult to see how resignation could be foreseeable - No constructive dismissal - PENALTY - Applicant sought penalty for failure to provide written employment agreement - Application declined - No evidence lack of written agreement created a problem between parties - BREACH OF CONTRACT - Counterclaim - Lack of notice - Claim baseless given respondent failed to clearly state terms of employment in writing and no evidence of damage consequent to breach - Receptionist |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Counterclaim dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s135 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Shop Employees IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Limited [1985] 2 NZLR 372;;Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW [1994] 2 NZLR415, [1994] 1 ERNZ 168;Yong t/a Yong & Co v Chin Perkins J, AK AC 37/07, 20 June 2007 |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 342_07.pdf [pdf 51 KB] |