| Summary |
BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant claimed respondent failed to provide healthy and safe workplace, breaching implied term of employment agreement (“EA”) - Authority found applicant suffered serious harm by breakdown, diagnosis of panic disorder, symptoms of depression and eye condition – Issues of causation, foreseeability and failure to take all reasonably practicable steps broken into two periods – Prior to breakdown - Authority found applicant’s workload excessive and beyond capabilities of one person - Found nature and volume of work over significant and sustained period caused applicant to suffer breakdown or burnout – Found applicant’s superiors accepted workload excessive, and submitted four business cases for further assistance for applicant – Found adoption of each of business cases would have constituted reasonably practicable step by respondent to provide safe and healthy workplace – However, respondent failed to adopt business cases – Found respondent failed to take all practicable steps to provide and maintain safe working environment – Found breach of obligation caused serious harm to applicant – Found prior to applicant taking stress-related sick leave, applicant told respondent workload excessive, under pressure, not coping, and requested second supervisor – Found superiors agreed applicant’s workload excessive and required assistance - Found prior to harm manifesting, respondent ought reasonably to have known excessive workload posed risk of serious harm – Found risk of serious harm reasonably foreseeable to respondent – Found harm leading to breakdown when applicant took sick leave, and diagnosis of panic disorder and depression, foreseeable to respondent – After breakdown - Authority found after breakdown respondent knew applicant unwell and suffering from work-related stress – Found respondent offered extra periods of leave, return to work plans, reduced hours, new staff for assistance and designed alternative role for applicant – Found respondent took all reasonably practicable steps to assist applicant and provided applicant with safe and healthy workplace following breakdown – Remedies – Respondent liable in damages for breach of contract for failing to take all reasonably practicable steps to provide safe workplace – Quantum to be determined by parties – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal - Redundancy – Applicant resigned during restructuring – Authority considered whether resignation caused by breach of duty by respondent – Authority found respondent took all reasonable and practicable steps to manage applicant’s health following breakdown – Found applicant still passionate to return to role and rejected any breach in that regard by affirming continuing employment relationship – Restructuring took place several years after breakdown, when applicant working limited hours and on secondment from full-time permanent role – Authority found respondent offered applicant new role and advised if did not accept, respondent would work with applicant to find another similar suitable role, and otherwise, applicant would be resigning – Found respondent advised applicant situation not redundancy because suitable and similar role offered – Found no justification for respondent’s failure to provide information, seek input or consult applicant regarding redundancy of applicant’s permanent employment – Found respondent also failed to distinguish applicant’s fitness for work from issue of whether employment redundant – Found respondent misguidedly made it clear to applicant that would not be considered for alternative supervisor’s role while remained unwell – Found were two separate issues and not appropriate to adopt that approach when had participated in gradual return to work programme ultimately aimed at return to full-time duties – Found applicant entitled to consider futile to apply for supervisor position – Found role offered not reasonably similar to applicant’s role, as no staff reporting to applicant in new role, and role not part of a team – Found failure to consult and engage applicant in meaningful and formal way about potential redundancy of permanent position, improper regard for fitness for work considerations in redundancy enquiry, failure to investigate other alternatives, and erroneous view that offered reasonably similar role, all lead to finding respondent failed to act in good faith towards applicant – Found failure constituted breach of duty – Found breach of duty sufficiently serious that reasonably foreseeable applicant would resign as result – Found resignation constituted constructive dismissal - Dismissal unjustified as breached good faith – Remedies – Found redundancy compensation not appropriate remedy – Found applicant resigned before issue of applicant’s continuing employment conclusively determined – Authority unable to find with sufficient certainty that entitlement to redundancy compensation would very likely have arisen – Applicant entitled to statutory remedies for unjustified dismissal – Quantum to be determined by parties - Ten years service – Airline agency support supervisor |