| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 450/09 |
| Hearing date | 11 Aug 2009 - 13 Aug 2009 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 14 December 2009 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | M Ryan ; J Ropati |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kelleher v Wiri Pacific Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicant sought non-publication order for names of applicant, “respondent and respondent’s wife” – Authority found applicant intended to refer to respondent’s managing director (“MD”) and wife (“W”) - Non-publication orders not sought by respondent, MD or W - Authority affirmed principle of open justice – Found no grounds to prohibit publication of applicant’s name – Non-publication order declined – Authority granted interim non-publication order for applicant’s name to preserve right to challenge - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Sexual harassment – W discovered applicant’s affair with MD - Applicant claimed sexually harassed by MD in motel after applicant ended relationship - Authority preferred MD’s evidence – Authority rejected applicant’s evidence that ended relationship – Found applicant not “hit on” for sexual intercourse by MD and no implied threat that applicant would lose job if did not accede to request – Applicant claimed second incident of sexual harassment when MD telephoned applicant seeking meeting – Authority found phone records showed MD overseas and no such call occurred - No sexual harassment - No unjustified disadvantage – Applicant claimed issuing of final written warning constituted unjustified disadvantage – Authority found proven that applicant left work from lunchtime, without authority for absence, to drink alcohol until late in evening – Found applicant failed to comply with lawful and reasonable instruction to not drive company car and hand over keys – Found warning justified, if not dismissal – Found warning did not expressly state specifically what warning for, but clarity in other parts – Authority rejected applicant’s argument that one year too long for warning to remain in place – No unjustified disadvantage - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant claimed resignation coerced – Claimed excluded from input on website development; MD did not assist her with project; chastised; audited; performance matters raised – Authority found insufficient evidence of particulars of some claims - Found other claims could not constitute breach of duty – No constructive dismissal – BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant claimed promised 10 percent shareholding in respondent – Authority found evidence to vague and uncertain to be enforceable as contract - Export manager |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA Schedule 2 cl10(1) |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 450_09.pdf [pdf 45 KB] |