| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Wellington 5 |
| Hearing date | 10 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 25 January 2011 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | M Smith ; G Tayler |
| Location | Palmerston North |
| Parties | Lunt v Firth and Stephenson Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant claimed chain of events based on unfounded allegations led to constructive dismissal because respondent breached obligation to act fairly and in good faith – Claimed respondent wanted her to resign - Respondent engaged consultants (“C”) to help with interpersonal problems between staff, particularly applicant – Staff member (“X”) complained that applicant harassing them – On C’s advice respondent’s director (“T”) wrote to applicant with number of allegations about performance as well as X’s allegations – Formal disciplinary process invoked, applicant put on notice employment at risk and warning was possibility – Parties held two meetings which did not resolve issues – At first meeting applicant presented with X’s letter of complaint for first time – Was also confusion about role of applicant’s support person - At second meeting some issues not proceeded with but applicant not informed why - Applicant wrote letter expressing dissatisfaction with how meetings went – Simultaneously respondent wrote to applicant setting out findings and stating no disciplinary action would be taken – T did not reply to applicant’s letter – Applicant went on sick leave for two weeks – Applicant returned to work and found small part of role involving payroll taken over by T – Applicant resigned because claimed T avoided her at work, not provided with reasons for payroll change, and T did nothing further about X’s complaint when had indicated would - Authority found issues raised with applicant sorts of matters employer entitled to raise with employee for discussion, improvement and consideration - Found not grounds to lead to resignation - Found applicant did not complain about removal of payroll duties at time - Found payroll small part of applicant’s duties – Found T entitled to take over duties for reasons given - Found respondent should have communicated with applicant more clearly about issue – However, found change to duties not sufficient to make resignation foreseeable – Found while relationship between applicant and T strained accepted T genuinely trying to move on from issues and continue employment relationship - Found while respondent could have been more communicative and responsive no breach of duty sufficiently serious to make resignation foreseeable – Found respondent did not engage in course of conduct designed to make applicant resign - Found applicant resigned of own free will - Found any claim applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged mitigated by no disciplinary action being taken – Found no type of personal grievance different to that claimed – Found no personal grievance - Office manager/administrator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Wellington_5.pdf [pdf 29 KB] |