| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 82/10 |
| Hearing date | 11 Feb 2010 |
| Determination date | 22 February 2010 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | A Boyle ; K Burson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Bell v Auckland City Council |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant claimed team leader (“T”) failed to appropriately address issues raised causing resignation – Claimed T’s conduct caused unjustified disadvantage – Respondent argued no constructive dismissal and no disadvantage – Applicant complained to T building report by employee (“R”) inadequate – T requested meeting – T advised applicant saw matter as “personality clash” between R and applicant –Advised received complaint applicant’s role as Bowling Club president could cause conflict of interest – T concerned applicant’s Club president role would affect how applicant dealt with complaints regarding Club’s operation – T advised applicant to do inspections in different area to avoid conflict of interest and personality clash – Applicant stated meeting “waste of time” and may resign – T advised applicant to “think about it” before resigning – T emailed applicant regarding alleged inadequate report – T concluded agreed with applicant’s criticism of R’s report however R and applicant made inspection mistakes – Applicant resigned – Respondent met with applicant, applicant explained reasons, resignation accepted – Personal grievance raised – Respondent’s evidence preferred – Applicant claimed incorrect criticism of relationship with R – Authority found criticism supported by applicant’s admission disliked R and relationship problems already existed between parties – Applicant claimed T failed to seriously consider concerns identified in R’s report – Found T fairly identified inadequacies with R and applicant’s inspection – Found T may have made mistake in interpreting legislation however error not sufficient to constitute breach of duty – Found applicant given opportunity to be heard and T seriously considered concerns – Applicant claimed T’s decision to move applicant to different area breached duty and caused disadvantage – Found T entitled to make decision – Found decision made to avoid conflict of interest and deal with personality clash – Found no disadvantage as applicant provided with work vehicle and fuel card – Found applicant did not need to move office – Found even if found breach of duty, resignation not reasonably foreseeable – Found applicant’s resignation hasty – Found matters could have been dealt with by discussions – Found T advised applicant valued team member – No constructive dismissal – No disadvantage – Building Inspector |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1);ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW (Inc) [1994] 1 ERNZ 168;Auckland Shop Employees Union v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 372;Harrod v DMG World Media (NZ) Ltd [2002] 2 ERNZ 410;Wellington etc Clerical Workers Union v Greenwich [1983] ACJ 965 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 82_10.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |