| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 308/08 |
| Hearing date | 19 Mar 2008 - 29 May 2008 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 28 August 2008 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | C Conroy ; M Kamphorst |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Coc-Kroft v Zion Wildlife Gardens Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant claimed constructively dismissed from employment with respondent – Respondent argued applicant did not raise constructive dismissal grievance in time but raised disadvantage grievance in time – Applicant initially employed by respondent to support friend (“B”) who was operator of respondent – Authority found assistance provided by applicant to B as park manager – No written employment agreement – Authority found applicant relinquished park manager role because safety concerns being ignored – Applicant claimed better to focus on animal handler duties and not management – Applicant reported to B’s mother (“S”) after she assumed ownership and control of respondent – Relationship between applicant and S deteriorated – Applicant provided letter from S alleging applicant in contravention of company rules – Argued applicant displayed bullying behaviour, failed to commence tours on time, inappropriate use of radio and park equipment, and failed to give animals water on one occasion – Applicant sought details of allegations before responding – Authority found no response from S in reply to applicant’s letters – S advised applicant accommodation building to be moved off respondent’s premises – Subsequently while applicant on annual leave was paid reduced amount of pay – Applicant took leave claiming workplace stress – Upon applicant’s return to work directed by S to perform light duties until clearance approved by B that applicant could work with cats – Applicant directed to mow lawns, weed, clean toilets, and grounds work – Applicant advised S raising grievance – Applicant received no response from S – Applicant resigned – Respondent invited applicant to retract resignation but applicant did not – Respondent argued applicant failed to raise grievance within 90 days – Authority found grievance raised in time – Authority found respondent never responded to applicant’s request for meeting – Found unfair because preliminary conclusions remained unchallenged and unresolved – Authority rejected respondent’s argument that no point responding to applicant – Authority found direction unfair to ask applicant to remove cabin off site in two weeks – Authority found failure to consult with applicant before relieving usual duties unfair – Found respondent breached duty of good faith owed to applicant – Found breaches of duty reasonably foreseeable would result in applicant’s resignation – Found constructive dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Authority found applicant’s aggressive behaviour contributory conduct warranting 20 percent reduction in remedies – Found applicant entitled to $6,720 reimbursement of lost wages after contribution – Authority accepted applicant evidence found very humiliating and degrading being required to perform grounds maintenance – Also found change from cat handler to maintenance person caused anxiety and distress – Authority found $6,400 compensation appropriate – Senior Big Cat Handler |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($8,400 reduced to $6,720) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000 reduced to $6,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 308_08.pdf [pdf 45 KB] |