| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 313/08 |
| Hearing date | 10 Dec 2007 - 27 Feb 2008 (5 days) |
| Determination date | 01 September 2008 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | S Corlett ; S Turner |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Crutchley v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) |
| Summary | BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant claimed respondent breached contractual terms by failing to provide applicant with safe work environment, causing applicant to suffer mental harm through work-related stress - Authority found applicant must show on balance of probabilities that suffered medically recognisable condition as result of work-related stress, that employer must have known or ought reasonably to have known about work-related stress and that employer failed to take practicable steps to deal with stress – Applicant alleged numerous breaches of duty – Authority found one breach made out – Found respondent breached duty by not inquiring as to possible causes of stress and by transferring applicant to new office without plan to facilitate return to workplace - Authority found applicant suffered major depressive disorder – However, found illness result of number of factors, not any breach of duty by respondent – Authority found respondent discovered applicant receiving treatment when applicant had left workplace – Collapse in applicant’s health not foreseeable by respondent – Applicant claimed bullying culture at respondent organisation, and systems used as instruments of bullying - Applicant’s alleged instances of bullying corresponded to alleged breaches of contract – Authority found behaviours complained of objectively reasonable - No breach of contract - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed contractual breaches also unjustified disadvantages – Based on previous findings, Authority found one unjustified disadvantage made out – Found respondent breached duty by failing to inquire about causes of stress and anxiety and failing to manage return to work appropriately – Respondent failed to ensure applicant not exposed to harm resulting from workplace stress, undermining essential trust and confidence and duty of good faith – Unjustified disadvantage - Remedies – Applicant obliged to inform respondent in timely manner that seeking medical treatment for work-related stress – Contributory conduct set at 25 percent – Applicant lost no lost remuneration as result of disadvantage – Respondent rectified breach through later enquiries – Awarded $3,750 compensation - UNJUSTIFED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed dismissal on grounds of mental incapacity unjustified because respondent’s breaches of contractual duties caused mental incapacity – Authority found applicant’s illness not caused by respondent’s breach of duty - Found employer not obliged to keep job open for sick employee indefinitely – Medical assessment clear that applicant making successful return to work unlikely – Fair procedure in terminating employment – Dismissal justified – PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for breach of duty of good faith by respondent – Authority found applicant did not establish failure by respondent to comply with duty of good faith - Claim also out of time – Penalty declined – Work broker |
| Result | Application granted (disadvantage) ; Applications dismissed (breach of contract) (dismissal) (penalty) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,750)(disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Breach of Contract |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s103A;ERA s124;HSE s2(1);HSE s2A;HSE s2A(2);HSE s6;HSE s19;HSE s19(b)(4);State Sector Act 1988 s82 |
| Cases Cited | Attorney-General v Gilbert [2002] 1 ERNZ 31 (CA);Brickell v Attorney-General [2000] 2 ERNZ 529;Cartwright v Commissioner of Police unreported, Travis J, 22 Dec 1999, AC 110/99;Commissioner of Police v Cartwright (2000) 2 ERNZ 106;Elayne Margaret Nilson-Reid v Attorney-General of the Department of Conservation [2005] 1 ERNZ 951;Gilbert v Attorney-General [2002] 1 ERNZ 332;Hoskin v Coastal Fish Supplies Ltd [1985] ACJ 124;Karen Evans and Gen-i Ltd unreported, D King, 29 Aug 2005, AA 333/05;Salt v Fell [2008] NZCA 128;Whelan v Attorney-General [2004] 2 ERNZ 554 |
| Number of Pages | 66 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 313_08.pdf [pdf 278 KB] |