| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 27 |
| Hearing date | 8 Feb 2011 |
| Determination date | 11 February 2011 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | G Burness ; T Doonan |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Van Halewyn v Savemart Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive dismissal - Applicant claimed resignation was actually constructive dismissal - Applicant rang supervisor (“R”) and informed her would not be coming into work as had to care for her mother who had fallen and was to be released from hospital later that day - R accepted applicant’s explanation - Applicant had in fact lied to R about her mother, in fact needed time off to care for adult son - Applicant had thought R would be more sympathetic if pretended needed time off to care for her mother - Later that day applicant came into workplace to talk to R - Dispute between parties as to what was said during talk - Applicant’s evidence preferred - Found applicant stated would need several days off work - Found R made it clear not convenient for business reasons for applicant to have time off - Found R suggested, but applicant rejected, alternative options to applicant taking leave - Found applicant said did not want to resign but would have to if could not have leave - Found R requested written resignation from applicant - Applicant wrote out resignation - Applicant then left workplace and was later paid outstanding wages and holiday pay - Authority found no breach of duty by respondent - Found applicant had no legal right to paid or unpaid leave at time - Found while R’s reaction may have been lacking in compassion was lawfully entitled to prefer requirements of respondent and insist on proper performance of applicant’s obligations - Found respondent did not embark on course of conduct with deliberate and dominant purpose of coercing applicant to resign - Authority accepted applicant found R difficult and demanding as a supervisor - However, found was no reason to think R or respondent intended or even wanted applicant to resign before applicant raised possibility - Found applicant not given choice of resigning or being fired - Found possibility of resignation came from applicant not respondent - Found applicant not dismissed - Found applicant resigned - No personal grievance - Sorter |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Auckland & Gisborne Amalgamated Society of Shop Employees and Related Trades etc IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] ACJ 963 ; [1985] 2 NZLR 372 ; (1985) ERNZ Sel Cas 136;Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW Inc [1994] 1 ERNZ 168 ; [1994] 2 NZLR 415;Boobyer v Good Health Wanganui Ltd unreported, Goddard CJ, 24 Feb 1994, WEC 3/94 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_27.pdf [pdf 21 KB] |