| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 223/10 |
| Hearing date | 29 Jul 2010 |
| Determination date | 06 December 2010 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | D Beck ; A Shaw |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Sanger v New Zealand Post Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged - Disciplinary meeting held and four allegations made including customer complaint, talking angrily to team leader, passing wind, and signing off incorrect times on time dockets – Applicant suspended and advised to attend further disciplinary meeting to provide explanations – Authority found in terms of collective employment agreement respondent concluded serious misconduct may have occurred – Found main reason applicant suspended because of irrational behaviour when confronted with minor queries and allegations – Found applicant upset and excitable at meeting – Found decision to suspend what fair and reasonable employer would have done in all circumstances – Applicant claimed suspension predetermined – Found degree of inevitability about suspension – Found process not perfect but suspension justified – Applicant claimed requested copy of customer complaint – Found information provided – No disadvantage – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – Applicant resigned from employment – Applicant paid full superannuation entitlement – Applicant claimed tricked into thinking would lose superannuation if dismissed – Found respondent had no knowledge applicant considering resigning – Found respondent considered discussion about superannuation in context of disciplinary outcome – Found respondent did not encourage resignation from applicant – Found resignation letter did not refer to superannuation – Found applicant suffered from mental illness – Found respondent took medical concerns into account during disciplinary process – Found applicant resigned of own free will – Found draft dismissal letter prepared – Found no pre-determination of dismissal – No dismissal – GOOD FAITH – Found no breaches of good faith by respondent – Found respondent did not mislead applicant as to superannuation claim – Postal Delivery Officer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Auckland etc Shop Employees etc IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Limited (1985) Sel Cas 136;Graham v Airways Corp of NZ [2005] ERNZ 587;Waugh v Commissioner of Police [2003] ERNZ 236 |
| Number of Pages | 18 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 223_10.pdf [pdf 84 KB] |