| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 396/10 |
| Hearing date | 16 Aug 2010 |
| Determination date | 03 September 2010 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | T Deichert (Applicant in person) ; P Muir |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Deichart v APN Holdings NZ Ltd |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Applicant claimed resignation was unjustified constructive dismissal - Applicant failed to raise grievance within 90 days - Applicant sought leave to raise grievance out of time on basis of exceptional circumstance occasioned by being too traumatised to consider raising grievance in 90 day period - Respondent opposed application - Applicant initially had good relationship with manager (“K”) - However, claimed following K’s return from period of leave relationship deteriorated to point where applicant felt bullied and undermined - Applicant claimed K criticised her in front of other staff members - Applicant and K had altercation at business fair - Four months later applicant took period of sick leave - Day applicant due to return to work provided second medical certificate stating would be unable to return to work for further four weeks due to workplace stress - Applicant then informed respondent resigning - Applicant discussed situation with K with general manger but stated would not be pursuing matter further - Three days after employment with respondent ended applicant commenced new employment as manager at gym - Applicant claimed undertaking role on trial basis while determined whether wanted to invest in gym - Authority found were inconsistencies with medical evidence applicant provided - Found medical evidence did not support applicant’s contention so traumatised by matter giving rise to grievance unable to consider raising grievance for whole 90 day period - Found in new job at gym applicant able to demonstrate ability to undertake role of some responsibility, to interface and intercede on behalf of other staff with a known difficult personality, and to make assessments on financial implications of investment in a business - Therefore, Authority did not accept applicant so traumatised unable to properly consider raising grievance during 90 period - Authority accepted applicant may have been emotionally stressed and upset at time of resignation - However, insufficient evidential basis for concluding trauma caused by experiences at respondent - Found applicant admitted were significant personal and financial stressors in life during period - Found applicant’s stated reasons for leaving in resignation letter did not accord with explanation K’s behaviour induced emotional breakdown - Found applicant not so affected or traumatised that amounted to exceptional circumstances - Leave to raise grievance out of time declined - Advertising Sales Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s114;ERA s114(1);ERA s114(4);ERA s114(4)(a);ERA s115;ERA s115(a) |
| Cases Cited | PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808;Telecom New Zealand Ltd v Morgan [2004] 2 ERNZ 9 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 396_10.pdf [pdf 51 KB] |