| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 145/09 |
| Hearing date | 28 May 2009 |
| Determination date | 03 September 2009 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | T Bamford, R Frost ; N Ironside |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Belzer v Armagh Investments Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant resigned following heated exchange with respondent’s wife – Applicant reported exchange to respondent but warned about security camera footage and told had no option but to resign – Respondent claimed applicant resigned on own volition – Applicant complained of no employment agreement, late payment of wages, no support or training, lack of necessities in work place, felt undervalued, comment about shop busier before applicant employed, argument with respondent’s wife, and reference by respondent to security camera footage – Authority found lack of employment agreement not causative of resignation – Found employer quickly rectified late payment of wages and therefore no breach of respondent’s duty towards applicant – Respondent provided applicant with book of various duties required of video assistant – Found no breach in terms of support and training given to applicant – Applicant claimed failure to supply necessities in work place such as toilet paper and stationery and filling gas bottle for heating – Found applicant did not raise issues with respondent during employment – Found gas bottle situation unsatisfactory but no breach – Applicant failed to raise issues about feeling undervalued during employment – Found no evidence appropriate steps would not have been taken to remedy situation had issues been raised – Found real reason for resignation exchange with respondent’s wife – Respondent confirmed comment made about store being busier before applicant employed – Respondent’s wife told applicant was lazy – Respondent claimed comment in response to applicant being rude – Found no breach by respondent as respondent’s wife had no authority to act on behalf of company – Authority preferred respondent’s evidence comment about security camera footage made after resignation – Found comment not causative of resignation – No dismissal – Part time sales assistant |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Shop Employees etc IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 372;NZ Woollen Workers IUOW v Distinctive Knitwear NZ Ltd [1990] 2 NZILR 438 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 145_09.pdf [pdf 48 KB] |