| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 135/08 |
| Hearing date | 24 Jun 2008 |
| Determination date | 15 September 2008 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | Q Stratford ; J White |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Ernst-Ruthven v Woodlands Apiary Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant managed bee hives which came from another beekeeper (“M”) – M entered into agreement with respondent to transfer 500 hives to be managed on respondents behalf by applicant – M received information from farmers concerned with state of apiary sites on farm – M argued sites grossly neglected since transferred management of them to respondent – Respondent’s managing director argued distressed by bee sites as evidence of dead bees at variance to information provided by applicant in charge of those sites – Respondent argued met with applicant to discuss hives – Respondent argued disjunction between evidence collected by respondent after physical examination of hives and information imputed by applicant onto apiary management system – Respondent argued applicant responsible for approximately 1000 hives, 50 percent of which were not where apiary management system said they were – Respondent examined nearby sites to assess standard with other sites – Applicant acknowledged apiary system not accurate – Respondent argued appeared impossible to find approximately half of hives entrusted to applicant’s management – Parties discussed possible outcomes of serious misconduct investigation and resignation – Applicant indicated intention to resign – Respondent asked applicant to put resignation in writing – Respondent uplifted resignation letter – Subsequently applicant raised personal grievance – Applicant claimed given ultimatum that either resign or be dismissed – Alternatively argued respondent embarked on course of conduct with dominant purpose to extract resignation – Authority found nothing to suggest meeting with applicant an ambush – Authority satisfied respondent attended meeting with open mind; seeking appropriate explanations – Found applicant unreliable witness – Found meeting with applicant not set up with dominant purpose of effecting resignation – Found meeting set up as ordinary operational meeting and when clear applicant either “duped” respondent or at least incompetent, meeting was suspended for respondent’s to review other hives – Authority found applicant resigned – However, foolish for respondent to seek letter with resignation statements as tended to suggest resignation not voluntary – Authority concluded respondent’s actions misguided – Authority found applicant resigned to avoid going through disciplinary process which respondent signalled would be required given information available – No unjustified constructive dismissal – ARREARS OF WAGES – Respondent conceded wages owed for notice period and sum now paid – Authority found applicant entitled to 6 percent interest on sum – PENALTY – Authority found respondent’s delay and continued reluctance to pay wages unreasonable – Found $1,000 penalty payable by respondent to applicant – Bee keeper |
| Result | Application dismissed (Dismissal) ; Application granted (Arrears of wages) ; Arrears of wages (Notice period) ; Interest (6%) ; Penalty ($1,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Shop Employees Union v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 372 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 135_08.pdf [pdf 40 KB] |