| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 101/10 |
| Hearing date | 18 Feb 2010 - 16 Apr 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 29 April 2010 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | N Soper, B Meyer ; L Jensen |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | O'Connor and Anor v Peevers and Anor |
| Other Parties | O'Connor, Peevers |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant’s were husband (“A”) and wife (“B”) – Applicant’s claimed unjustifiably constructively dismissed by respondents – Applicants claimed farm tasks increased fatigue and created stress – Applicants raised concerns about inadequate training with respondents – B claimed shocked when respondents stated thought applicants resigning – Respondents argued issue about inadequacy of training never raised – Applicants argued told by respondents that replacements for their positions had been found and references would be provided – Respondents argued never intended to replace applicants but considered hiring part-time worker to assist A – Applicants tendered resignations – Authority found no reason to question integrity of parties – Found both parties entered into the employment relationship with good intentions – Found serious issues around training and communication between parties – Found meeting to resolve issues did not eventuate due to serious misconceptions by respondents that applicants intended to resign – Found respondent never applicant’s employer – Found respondent owned herd, and given contract with applicants, wanted to alert them to perceived risk to linked interests – Authority accepted applicants did not intend to resign – Found applicants jumped too soon before respondents able to clarify purpose of hiring part-time worker – Found despite applicant’s best endeavours was struggling with physical workload – Found breaches did not meet threshold required for constructive dismissal claim – Found in relation to unjustified disadvantage claim respondents acted as fair and reasonable employers – RECOVERY OF MONIES – Authority found deductions made for applicant’s wet weather gear unlawful – Found sums deducted to be returned to applicants – Respondents ordered to pay applicants two weeks wages A unable to earn in course of final two weeks notice – Farm workers |
| Result | Applications dismissed (Constructive dismissal)(Disadvantage) ; Recovery of monies (Wet weather gear) ; (Lost wages) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s122 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 101_10.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |