| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 186/09 |
| Hearing date | 17 Jun 2009 - 18 Jun 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 28 October 2009 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | J Copeland ; D Rhodes, A McIntosh |
| Location | Invercargill |
| Parties | Bennett v Bright Wood New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant alleged constructively dismissed by employer who embarked on course of conduct with deliberate purpose of coercing resignation – Co-worker walked off job following comments made by applicant – Meeting held between respondent and co-worker – Respondent gave applicant notice of disciplinary meeting – Upon receiving notice applicant wrote to site manager communicating disapproval of process – Respondent alleged applicant and support person refused to listen or explain incident – Applicant alleged respondent aggressive and accusatory during meeting – Another meeting held with applicant to discuss further complaints – Applicant walked off job and subsequently received final written warning – Medical certificate given to respondent stating applicant suffered from work related stress – Applicant argued respondent did not investigate notification – Respondent claimed applicant never complained of stress or took sick days related to stress – Applicant resigned due to stress – Authority found no formal warning given following incident with co-worker – Found applicant not detailed to fillet packing task as punishment – Found applicant did not take opportunity to discuss medical certificate with respondent – Found certificate fell well short on detail to support claim of constructive dismissal – Found respondent’s actions in terms of investigation of incident with co-worker did not unjustifiably disadvantage applicant – Found respondent acted in good faith – Found respondent did not adopt course of action with objective of having applicant resign – No dismissal – Found if had been unjustified dismissal contributory conduct by applicant would have significantly impacted compensation – Product wrapper |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Alliance Freezing Co (Southland) Ltd v NZ Amalgamated Engineering IUOW (1989) ERNZ Sel Cas 575 (CA);Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authority Officers’ IUOW Inc [1994] ERNZ 168;Auckland Shop Employees’ IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] ERNZ Sel Cas 136;Gilbert v Attorney-General in respect of the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2000] ERNZ 332;Van der Sluis v Health Waikato Ltd [1996] ERNZ 514 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 186_09.pdf [pdf 43 KB] |