| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 198 |
| Hearing date | 16 Dec 2010 |
| Determination date | 12 May 2011 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | K Single ; M Beech, K McLeish |
| Location | Tauranga |
| Parties | Campuzano v Western Bay Dental Care Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Incompatibility – Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified – Respondent claimed dismissal justified due to irreconcilable breakdown in trust and confidence pertaining to applicant’s conduct - Applicant employed as receptionist at respondent’s dental practice – Applicant had job share arrangement with another receptionist (“B”) - Applicant received verbal warning for incident with B – Applicant upset B rostered that day and not her and was speaking in raised voice to B and waving her finger in B’s face – Further incident occurred where applicant refused instruction to train B – Applicant informed of number of complaints about her behaviour made by B - Applicant given written warning – Applicant responded to warning by providing three page letter – Applicant claimed respondent’s director (“F”) acting with “vehemence” because applicant was threat to her authority – Claimed F was bullying and harassing her – Parties had meeting to try and find way forward in employment relationship – Applicant and support person refused to engage in any further discussion and stated all further discussion should be in writing – Following meeting F sent letter to respondent stating was considering dismissal and seeking applicant’s feedback – Applicant provided written feedback – Applicant dismissed - Authority found despite flaws in verbal warning process was valid verbal warning given for good cause – Found applicant then given written warning following investigation into her interpersonal relationships with other staff – Authority found while had some reservations about overall fairness of circumstances surrounding issuing of written warning applicant did not challenge it in any meaningful way and did not appear to be substantive factor in decision to terminate applicant’s employment - Found applicant’s response to warning was to make allegations against F and claim was being bullied and harassed – Found appeared applicant had largely abandoned possibility of constructive discussion about how to resolve issues - Found applicant created situation whereby was impossible for employment relationship to continue and that F had little choice but to terminate applicant’s employment - Found because of applicant’s views of F that would not resile from was irreconcilable breakdown in trust and confidence between parties - Found respondent’s actions in dismissing applicant those of fair and reasonable employer - Dismissal justified - Receptionist |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | BP Oil NZ Ltd v Northern Distribution Union [1992] 3 ERNZ 483;Buxton v Five Star Beef Ltd unreported, Palmer J, 30 Jan 1998, CEC 4/98;New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Reid [1998] 2 ERNZ 250 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_198.pdf [pdf 58 KB] |