| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 89/09 |
| Hearing date | 14 May 2009 |
| Determination date | 26 June 2009 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | D Beck ; no appearance |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Owles v The Travel Practice Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Short term employment – Three days employment – Constructive dismissal – No appearance for respondent – Authority satisfied respondent provided all information and knew investigation meeting date – Applicant claimed told during job interview would receive training on respondent’s systems – Applicant claimed offered employment by respondent’s director (“P”) and signed employment agreement but not provided copy – P told applicant to observe way co-worker worked – Applicant received no reply from P when sought information on training – Applicant estimated required six weeks intensive training based on previous work experience – Applicant claimed P demanding and aggressive with co-worker applicant observing – Applicant worked on own as co-worker left following week – Applicant claimed was yelled at by P and training request not taken seriously – Applicant claimed felt under very unpleasant pressure – Applicant claimed developed nauseating headache when discovered glasses missing – Applicant claimed noticed P with glasses – Claimed P said glasses were applicant’s and made degrading and disrespectful comments about applicant’s ethnicity – Applicant confronted P next day and said way spoken to unacceptable and unacceptable P found humour from upsetting applicant in front of co-workers – Applicant claimed P laughed while concerns raised and got impression not being taken seriously – Applicant claimed P said applicant should be able to handle work as not “rocket science” and told to get “arse back to desk” – Applicant claimed left P’s office more dejected than when entered – Claimed P offensively called applicant into office and proceeded to chastise applicant about spelling mistakes and work performance – Applicant felt intimidated by P’s staring – Claimed could not take it anymore, and left work premises – Authority found only response from respondent was email denying glasses incident, words used, and comments on applicant’s performance – Authority found applicant credible witness and accepted evidence without reservation – Found P should have followed proper process in raising any performance concerns with applicant by taking into account inexperience and fact told would receive training – Authority found applicant resigned directly because of treatment from P – Found P’s conduct towards applicant went beyond inconsiderate and poor taste – Found applicant very offended by P’s conduct and took courage to raise concerns – Authority found P destroyed trust and confidence with applicant when spoke offensively to applicant after applicant indicated behaviour offensive and unacceptable – Found breach of good faith by P when continued to be critical and undermined applicant’s performance without provided training as promised – Found breaches sufficiently serious that resignation foreseeable – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Found applicant entitled to $1,038.46 lost wages – Authority found P’s behaviour affected applicant’s self esteem and this impacted on family – Found applicant cried a lot and took long time to get over way treated – Found was evident still difficult for applicant to give evidence during Authority investigation – Authority found $7,000 compensation appropriate given applicant significantly affected by dismissal - Travel consultant |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($1,038.46) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($7,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Shop Employees Union v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 372 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 89_09.pdf [pdf 30 KB] |