| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 509/10 |
| Hearing date | 9 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 14 December 2010 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | Forsbrey (in person) ; D Mackinnon |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Forsbrey v Waitangi National Trust |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Applicant claimed resignation was constructive dismissal - Applicant claimed respondent failed to provide safe workplace as required - Claimed relationship of trust, confidence, and fair dealing destroyed - Claimed respondent failed to investigate and act upon complaint supervisor (“L”) bullied, humiliated, intimidated, and abused her over long period - Respondent previously had concerns about applicant’s performance - Parties had meeting to discuss concerns, applicant given written warning, and advised further training would be provided - Applicant aware L would be observing and assessing her performance - Applicant made basic error in entering financial data - L left applicant note stating “Do Not Do This Again April Closed!!!” - Applicant claimed note was final straw - Applicant went to doctor and put on two weeks sick leave - Applicant had meeting with respondent’s chief executive where raised concerns for first time and asked to no longer work with L - Respondent explained would not be possible due to nature of respondent and applicant and L’s positions - Two days later applicant resigned - Authority found email correspondence between applicant and L did not show any signs of bullying or intimidation - Found bluntness of note seemed to have been one off - Found likely applicant transformed anxiety or frustration at being unable to cope with job into hostility towards L - Found even if had been behaviour applicant complained of applicant did not complain to respondent until after gone on sick leave and just before resigned - Applicant did not give respondent opportunity to properly investigate complaints - Found when respondent was informed of applicant’s complaints acted immediately and appropriately - Found no conduct by L amounting to breach of duty - Found no failure by respondent to respond to concerns raised by applicant - Found no evidence of breach of duty causing resignation - Therefore, no breach of sufficient seriousness to make it reasonably foreseeable applicant would resign rather than put up with breach - Found applicant resigned of own free will - No constructive dismissal - Assistant Accountant |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW Inc [1994] 1 ERNZ 168 ; [1994] 2 NZLR 415 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 509_10.pdf [pdf 39 KB] |