| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 158/09 |
| Hearing date | 4 Jun 2009 - 5 Jun 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 18 September 2009 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | D Beck ; M Richards |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Johnson v New Zealand Racing Board |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by behaviour of manager (“M”) and others which led to health and safety issues - Applicant claimed M and other members of management team ignored her requests for safety lock to be put on a door - Applicant claimed entitled to 40 hours work per week and requirement not always met - Applicant claimed personal safety jeopardised on at least two occasions; firstly when respondent’s Retail Operations Manager told a stranger applicant had found packet of white powder in branch; secondly when punter was told applicant’s branch was branch where most cash kept - Applicant claimed M abused and bullied her, calling her drama queen and drawing violin next to her request for lock in communications book - Authority found relationship between applicant and M strained - Found M complained to M’s manager about constant harassment from applicant about hours of work - Applicant went on one month’s sick leave citing workplace stress as cause - On return to work respondent requested applicant attend medical assessment to verify fit for work - Applicant’s employment continued until terminated for redundancy - Authority satisfied events leading up to sick leave contributed to need to take sick leave - Authority found no satisfactory explanation for respondent’s failure to arrange mediation between applicant and M when requested by applicant – Found team meeting to develop team code for behaviour failed to address specific issues between M and applicant - Authority found respondent failed to undertake full and fair investigation of applicant’s complaints - Found after advising applicant investigation taken place, respondent refused to confirm outcome or steps taken to address applicant’s concerns - Authority found applicant suffered disadvantage during employment - Found applicant no longer felt tolerated at work and relationship with M completely dysfunctional - Found management’s dismissive approach to applicant’s concerns and lack of fair investigation into complaints about M, including apparent lack of neutrality, contributed to disadvantage - Disadvantage unjustified - Authority noted applicant lacked insight into relationship with M and put all responsibility for deterioration in relationship on M - Authority found applicant’s perceptions of M’s behaviour and seriousness of behaviour was, at times, overstated and exaggerated - Remedies - Authority satisfied applicant contributed to grievance - Evidence of respondent’s witnesses that applicant continually challenged M and took every opportunity to disagree with M’s decisions - Witnesses claimed did not like working with applicant and had requested not be rostered to work with her - 50 percent contributory conduct - Authority found applicant’s claim to retain job appropriate at time grievance lodged but since then applicant’s employment terminated for redundancy - Found as no personal grievance raised in relation to redundancy, Authority unable to assist applicant - No evidence applicant lost wages as result of grievance - No order for lost wages - Authority considered effects of respondent’s treatment on applicant as relevant to award of compensation - Authority found applicant had longstanding health issues which were exacerbated by respondent’s failure to deal with applicant’s concerns in fair manner - Authority found award of $10,000 compensation appropriate, reduced to $5,000 for contributory conduct - TAB Salesperson |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000 reduced to $5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Bilkey v Imagepac Partners unreported, Colgan J, 7 Oct 2002, AC 65/02;Clear v Waikato District Health Board [2008] ERNZ 646;Johnson v New Zealand Racing Board unreported, P Cheyne, 16 Jan 2008, CA 4/08;Mason v Health Waikato [1998] 1 ERNZ 84;McCosh v National Bank unreported, Colgan J, 13 Sep 2004, AC 49/04;NZ Storeworkers IUW v South Pacific Tyres (NZ) Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 452 |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 158_09.pdf [pdf 55 KB] |