| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 150/10 |
| Hearing date | 20 Jul 2010 |
| Determination date | 23 September 2010 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | J Sanders ; D Burton |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Samu v Catholic Bishops Conference Securities Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably constructively dismissed by respondent – Claimed reinstatement and partial redundancy payment for reduced duties – Respondent argued applicant resigned during investigation into alleged serious misconduct – Credibility finding in favour of respondent – Authority noted finding made despite absence of applicant’s supervisor (“S”) who was key witness – Applicant accepted genuineness of restructuring implemented by respondent – Incident occurred between applicant and S after which S made formal complaint against applicant – S alleged bullying actions by applicant to extent became overstressed and intimidated by closeness of working relationship between applicant and Associate Judicial Vicar for Wellington region (“M”) – Archbishop (“D”) decided given seriousness of allegations and S’s claim that felt unsafe at work, no option but to investigate complaint – D instructed member of archdiocese (“V”) to investigate complaint – Subsequently applicant suspended after agreed to investigation process – V concluded serious misconduct by applicant – Respondent informed applicant of serious misconduct finding and possibility of dismissal – Applicant invited to meeting to respond to findings – Authority accepted respondent had not come to preconceived outcome – Applicant conceded V’s findings basically correct – Applicant in consultation with advisor decided given serious misconduct could lead to dismissal, and serious misconduct was D’s finding, would resign – Respondent accepted resignation – Subsequently applicant sought to accept new part-time position together with partial redundancy, on basis of constructive dismissal – Respondent told applicant had resigned and part-time employment offer not available – Authority noted constructive dismissal test involved determining whether initiative for dismissal in effect came from employer or employee – Found no reason to conclude V’s report so inadequate applicant could rely on report’s purported failings to resign – Found D did not simply accept findings of report and kept open mind throughout – Found respondent not required to give applicant more time to consider resignation – Found respondent under no legal obligation to reinstate applicant – No unjustified constructive dismissal – Case Instructor |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v V [2009] ERNZ 185;Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW [1994] 1 ERNZ 168 (CA);Auckland & Gisborne Amalgamated Society of Shop Employees and Related Trades etc IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] ACJ 963 ; [1985] 2 NZLR 372;Business Distributors Ltd v Patel [2001] ERNZ 124 (CA);Fredricksen v Bay of Plenty Area Health Board [1992] 1 ERNZ 8 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 150_10.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |