| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 430/08 |
| Hearing date | 19 Jun 2008 - 20 Jun 2008 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 19 December 2008 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | R Harris ; D Chesterman |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Sub v Topsco International Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed bullying and unjustified written warning – Employment relationship between applicant and store manager (“X”) deteriorated when concerns over applicant’s behaviour developed – X raised concerns to operations manager (“C”) and formal performance assessment held – Applicant’s performance graded “good to very good” – X recorded applicant’s conduct and claimed no improvement –Disciplinary meeting held – Applicant distressed, went on sick leave, raised bullying by X – C investigated and concluded allegations “without substance” – C notified applicant of conclusion and issued warning citing poor performance – C offered to facilitate resolution of employment relationship difficulties – Applicant declined offer and refused to return to work after medical certificate expired – Applicant notified of termination if no return – Applicant did not return – Applicant dismissed - Applicants allegations were X told staff not to contact head office; told staff off in front of customers; X took advantage of position to ensure personal sale figures not affected; took advantage of culture differences; made insensitive jokes; declined computer training to applicant - Authority found C conducted fair investigation and reasonable to conclude no bullying – Found questions covering relevant issues asked suitable – Found all relevant people interviewed – Acknowledged C was not required to interview past employees when no knowledge of their connection to issue – Found applicant’s allegations not supported by strong evidence and not specific examples of bullying – No bullying – Authority found performance warning procedurally unjustified – Found no separate investigation into alleged poor performance – Found decision to warn based on initial investigation – Found C should have taken account of evidence showing responsibility for employment relationship breakdown attributable to applicant and X – Warning unjustified disadvantage – REMEDIES - $3,000 compensation appropriate – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Abandonment - Applicant claimed unreasonable to return when concerns not addressed - Authority found unreasonable for applicant not to return when no bullying and offer of facilitation given – Dismissal justified – Salesperson |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified disadvantage – warning) Application dismissed (Unjustified disadvantage – bullying) (Unjustified dismissal) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 430_08.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |