| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 31/08 |
| Hearing date | 20 Mar 2007 - 22 Mar 2007 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 05 February 2008 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | C Murphy ; L Campbell |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Ringrose v Brazin Ltd and Bras n Things New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | BREACH OF CONTRACT – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed health harmed by workplace stress and respondent failed to provide safe system of work – On doctor’s advice took two weeks leave - Applicant required to start new operation from scratch with inexperienced staff – Job too much for one person – Excessive workload caused applicant’s health problems – However, risk not foreseeable – Claim for wages lost while on leave dismissed – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant claimed when returned to work, workload remained excessive and subjected to unreasonable and bullying treatment by managers – Applicant given strict instructions to improve stores – Conflict with manager led to “counselling” about behaviour and investigation into alleged serious misconduct – Applicant resigned, claimed lost all confidence in manager and felt overwhelmed – Applicant clearly suffered harm – Harm and resignation direct result of pressure applicant faced upon return to work – Counselling sessions unfair – While more likely than not applicant’s tone “unprofessional”, in context manager should have seen reaction as sign of distress – To describe actions as serious misconduct out of proportion with gravity of error – Extent of demands broke applicant’s health while unreasonable nature of demands destroyed her trust and confidence in managers – Ill health and resignation foreseeable and direct consequences of treatment she received from managers – Rather than attempt to prevent further harm, respondent imposed additional and unreasonable demands – Serious breach of duty to provide safe system of work – Remedies – Very distressing experience for applicant – Diagnosed with reactive depression and unable to work for several months - $20,000 compensation appropriate – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Dispute and counterclaim relating to applicant’s expenses reserved as neither party provided enough evidence for Authority to make determination |
| Result | Application dismissed (breach of contract, unjustified disadvantage) ; Application granted (unjustified dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (4 weeks) ; Wages in lieu of notice period (2 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($20,000) ; Application reserved (Dispute and counterclaim) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Sutherland v Hatton [2002] EWCA Civ 76 |
| Number of Pages | 29 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 31_08.pdf [pdf 94 KB] |