| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 63/10 |
| Hearing date | 17 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 11 March 2010 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | S Bradshaw ; G Pollak |
| Location | Queenstown |
| Parties | Peters v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – Respondent received audit report showing significant failings in respondent’s business operations – Applicant responsible for management of operations – First meeting – Respondent asked applicant whether wanted a lesser role or face disciplinary proceedings – Applicant chose disciplinary proceedings – Disciplinary meeting – Respondent advised applicant not alleging applicant responsible for entire audit failings however applicant’s duty to manage operations – Advised matter serious – Advised no disciplinary decision made but needed to trust applicant could manage operations – Second disciplinary meeting – Applicant assured respondent would fix problems for next audit – Respondent temporarily relieved applicant from management duties however applicant would retain salary and undertake similar duties – No meeting held with head chef as on sick leave and subsequently resigned – Respondent concluded could not reinstate applicant to managerial role but wished for applicant to stay on – Respondent formally offered applicant alternative position – Applicant declined offer and resigned – Personal grievance raised – Applicant claimed offer of alternative position breached employment agreement and breach sufficiently serious to cause resignation – Claimed investigation procedurally unjustified - Authority found respondent provided applicant with audit report for applicant to respond to matter – Found respondent made clear what concerns were to applicant – Found respondent unable to interview chef for reasons out of their control - Found investigation procedurally justified – Applicant claimed respondent breached good faith by rejecting applicant’s assurances operations would improve - Found respondent did not outright reject applicant’s assurances – Found respondent later concluded applicant unable to carry out management duties to required standard after objective assessment – Found respondent entitled to conclude assurances not sufficient in circumstances - Found offer of alternative position not breach of good faith – Found applicant given time to consider offer and remained on full pay – Found circumstances which alternative offer given fair – Found no constructive dismissal – COSTS – No costs sought in event respondent successful - Customer Service Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No costs sought against applicant |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Materoa v New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Ltd unreported, I McAndrew, 10 May 2001, DT 35/01 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 63_10.pdf [pdf 55 KB] |