| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 51/08 |
| Hearing date | 27 Mar 2007 - 30 Mar 2007 (4 days) |
| Determination date | 19 February 2008 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | L Ponniah ; G Brant, B Toy-Cronin |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kirkley v Ora Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Work related stress – Applicant claimed respondent failed to offer support when overworked and under resourced – Period October to December 2005 – Respondent on notice funding source being phased out – Security of employment made applicant apprehensive – Applicant claimed feeling tired, irritable and nauseous – Concerns not raised with respondent – No evidence applicant suffered from diagnosable illness – Staff informed of respondent’s plans to secure organisations future – Authority satisfied reasonable steps taken by respondent to support staff – Period January to February 2006 – Applicant appointed to new position – Applicant cancelled taking of annual leave because obliged to stay, however, also feared being made redundant – Confrontation with respondent owner where applicant shouted at and threatened with disciplinary action – Applicant accepted offer of sabbatical – Applicant found personal belongings boxed up without authorisation – Applicant “went out of control” as believed was subject to investigation – No evidence to support applicants claim that respondent aware applicant suffering from work related illness – Not-withstanding non-notification of workplace stress, respondent took steps to minimise applicant’s workload and stress issues – Applicant suspended – Applicant diagnosed with major clinical depression – Applicant advised respondent that exclusion of particulars from suspension notice causing her trauma and stress – Settlement proposal rejected – Applicant dismissed – Claimed applicant failed to maintain confidentiality of business information – Claimed pattern of unacceptable behaviour – Authority found issues not fairly put to applicant – Respondent failed to investigate applicant’s explanations – Respondent’s reasons for reaching decision wrong in principle – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Claim for lost remuneration for period after sabbatical declined – Causal link between ill health and employment not made out – Applicant prescribed antidepressants – Medical evidence that dismissal an impediment to recovery – Financial pressures faced by family – Contributory conduct 10% – Compensation $15,000 – Administration manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (4 months) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($15,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Attorney-General v Gilbert [2002] 1 ERNZ 31 |
| Number of Pages | 36 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 51_08.pdf [pdf 141 KB] |