| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 145/08 |
| Hearing date | 12 Nov 2007 |
| Determination date | 18 April 2008 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | C Courtney ; E Butcher |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Philpott v Refinery Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Two weeks’ employment - Respondent claimed employment terminated by agreement - Applicant hired to replace experienced beauty therapist - Respondent received complaints about applicant’s work from clients - One complaint discussed with applicant - Respondent’s owner (“F”) and respondent’s salon manager (“B”) concluded applicant not capable of performing to standard required and did not have resources to train her - Applicant claimed told to sign resignation letter at meeting with B - B claimed applicant signed resignation letter willingly - At investigation meeting B claimed to have no memory of meeting - Applicant’s evidence preferred - Authority found circumstances in which applicant signed termination letter rendered it a constructive dismissal - Found meeting set up with intention to terminate applicant’s employment - Applicant told resignation only option – No notice of purpose of meeting or opportunity to have representative present - Applicant had no opportunity to address complaints as no details provided - Remedies - No contributory conduct - Authority found even if respondent lacked resources to train applicant, had obligation to ensure given appropriate assistance in new position - Award of $4,000 compensation appropriate - Beauty therapist |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 145_08.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |