| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 71/10 |
| Hearing date | 22 Dec 2009 |
| Determination date | 17 March 2010 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | M Henderson ; G Malone |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Ward v South Pacific Meats Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed supervisor (X) bullied applicant and respondent failed to adequately deal with matter – Respondent argued adequately investigated allegations and conclusion allegations unfounded reasonable – Applicant claimed X’s motive for bullying due to applicant going behind X’s back and asking respondent’s manager (“H”) to employ applicant’s partner (“Y”) – Respondent argued Y hired on X’s recommendation as Y used to work with X - Authority found belief rehiring Y motive for bullying mistaken – Found applicant failed to establish motive for X’s alleged bullying – Applicant claimed X bullied applicant by yelling and putting applicant down in front of co-workers – Applicant made first bullying complaint to H – H advised applicant would pay closer attention to X’s behaviour and report observations to applicant – Conflict of evidence whether H reported to applicant observations and X’s denials – Applicant made second complaint – Claimed X yelled at applicant for not trimming lamb properly and not using sterilized knife – Claimed X targeted applicant – Applicant advised H would resign if had to continue working with X – H present during incident - H told applicant X’s concerns reasonable and to continue working – H offered to meet with parties if wanted to take matter further - Applicant declined offer – Respondent argued X yelled as workplace noisy and X had hearing aid – Argued no targeting of applicant - Applicant resigned – Personal grievance raised – Authority found bullying allegation based on first complaint outside limitation period – No jurisdiction – Found respondent failed to adequately investigate allegations after first complaint made – Found H did not address applicant’s second complaints – Found H did not report back observations to applicant - Found not appropriate for H to believe no merit in complaints without investigation – Found H’s failure to resolve matters caused applicant to believe being bullied and distress – Found unjustified disadvantage – Found no disadvantage for second complaint – Found H responded to complaints and applicant declined to take matters further – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Found no lost remuneration – $1,500 compensation appropriate - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant claimed resignation reasonably foreseeable due to X’s bullying – Authority found applicant resigned because applicant threatened to quit if returned to mutton room – Found when H told her to go back, applicant felt needed to carry out resignation threat – Found no breach of obligations as X’s concerns reasonable and accepted yelling due to X’s deafness and work environment – Found no evidence of targeting applicant – Found X’s conduct “impolite or inconsiderate” but not breach of duty – Found even if found breach, not sufficiently serious to make resignation reasonably foreseeable – No dismissal – Knife Hand |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified disadvantage – Inadequate investigation) ; Applications dismissed (Unjustified disadvantage – Bullying)(Unjustified dismissal) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,500) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW [1994] 1 ERNZ 168;Auckland etc Shop Employees IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] ACJ 963;Clear v Waikato District Health Board [2008] ERNZ 646;Edmonds v Attorney-General [1998] 1 ERNZ 1;NZ Woollen Workers IUOW v Distinctive Knitwear NZ Ltd [1990] 2 NZILR 438;Sloggett v Taranaki Health Care Limited [1995] 1 ERNZ 553 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 71_10.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |