| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant wrote to respondent’s human resources manager seeking clarification of benefits included in individual employment agreement (“IEA”) – Respondent replied to applicant confirming occasional personal call reasonable, IEA amended to reflect dual reporting lines, gym entitlement, high speed internet entitlement, and performance review after first three months and annually thereafter – Subsequently applicant raised issue of salary review with acting human resources manager (“P”) – P advised applicant all salary reviews took place at end of year – Applicant raised concerns with respondent that no three month review as promised, no internet benefit provided, 12 month performance review delayed unnecessarily, salary review constantly avoided, and no back dated superannuation – Applicant met with general manager to outline concerns – Applicant claimed found meetings intimidating and unsatisfactory as no resolution to issues and respondent’s attitude dismissive – Subsequently, applicant resigned, claiming respondent had not attempted to resolve breaches of contract in good faith – Respondent asked applicant if wanted to reconsider decision without prejudice – Applicant told resignation to stand because breaches not rectified and sought exit package as reparation for mistakes – Not disputed applicant resigned – Applicant claimed cumulative effects of failures to provide internet, back pay superannuation, and salary reviews, was repudiatory conduct causative of resignation – Authority found monthly internet term of IEA but not an element of remuneration – Found applicant’s discussions with respondent in context of remuneration – Authority found applicant not entitled to insist on payments for internet access as only entitled to reimbursement where actually incurred expense – Found no breach of duty regarding internet access – Found respondent’s requirement for applicant to return work phone in exchange for poor quality replacement a retaliatory action – Found respondent’s delayed resolution of matter, processing of internet expense claim, and confiscation of phone, not ideal but not breach of duty – Found respondent’s decision not to backdate superannuation unjustified and breached IEA and good faith – Applicant claimed respondent failed to provide proper salary review – Found IEA did not oblige respondent to seek applicant’s input – Found express wording of IEA permitted respondent to review salary without input from applicant – Found s4(1A)(c) Employment Relations Act 2000 expected only where proposed decision likely to have adverse effect on employee that employer to provide opportunity to comment – Found no breach of duty in conducting salary reviews – Authority concluded respondent’s breach of duty concerning backdating of superannuation not so serious as reasonably foreseeable applicant would resign – Found no constructive dismissal – Chief engineer |