| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed disadvantaged by dysfunctional relationship between manager (“R”) and respondent’s CEO (“S”) – Authority found relationship between R and S at times abrasive – Found difficulties in relationship pre-dated applicant’s employment but deteriorated during employment – Found fallout from relationship impacted on applicant, but was not directed nor intended to be directed at applicant – Found although unpleasant for applicant, no unjustified action in applicant’s regard – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged when R disclosed to co-worker contents of memo from applicant to R – Authority found applicant also discussed memo with other staff – No unjustified disadvantage – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant claimed circumstances of relationship between R and S subjected applicant to breach of terms and conditions of employment so serious that applicant entitled to repudiate contract – Authority found applicant’s claims had basis in fact - However, applicant declined to withdraw resignation when urged by S and despite S’s advice that R to leave respondent – Applicant worked out notice period – Applicant later requested and obtained contract work with respondent – Found in those circumstances, could not uphold constructive dismissal claim – Found employer responded promptly to applicant’s concerns – Found undertook process and advised applicant could instigate further assistance if dissatisfied – Found applicant did not do so, and did not withdraw resignation despite S’s assurances – Authority found although resignation not a surprise, not foreseeable because respondent moved quickly to address issues and thought matter resolved - Application dismissed - BREACH OF FAIR TRADING ACT – Applicant claimed was deliberately misled in course of interview for employment – Claimed respondent breached s12 Fair Trading Act 1986 (“FTA”) – Authority found precedent set bar highly, particularly on matter of intention to deceive – Authority found although interview presented respondent in very favourable light, allegation not made out – No breach of FTA – BREACH OF GOOD FAITH – Applicant sought penalty for respondent allegedly breaching obligations of good faith in dealings with applicant pre-employment and post-employment – Authority found respondent acted promptly upon applicant’s complaint, particularly given S going overseas following day – Found S ensured concerns attended to, and applicant did not approach with further concerns – Found applicant did not engage with R further despite respondent encouraging to raise concerns with R directly – Found claim not made out – Authority noted would have required R to give evidence in person if knew changed residence from Australia to Wellington - Communications Advisor |