| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 87 |
| Hearing date | 5 Apr 2011 |
| Determination date | 20 June 2011 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | S McKenzie ; G Malone |
| Location | Invercargill |
| Parties | Ryan v South Pacific Meats Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged by applicant - Applicant claimed unable to perform all required daily tasks after given further responsibility by new accountant (“K”) – Applicant claimed requested help but respondent did not take request seriously – Applicant claimed became stressed and anxious after bullied and respondent made unreasonable demands – Applicant took stress leave and later resigned – Applicant sought $20,000 compensation and $18,600 reimbursement of wages – Respondent claimed applicant’s performance unacceptable, applicant obstructive and held regular meetings – K disputed new tasks allocated to applicant and claimed applicant already doing some before K commenced employment – Respondent’s plant manager (“H”) claimed applicant would have been too busy when new tasks added to role – Respondent’s operation manager (“M”) claimed further tasks not too much for applicant and similar size plants did not have same level of support – Employee who replaced applicant (“C”) claimed did almost all applicant’s tasks although less invoice work and did not think workload excessive – Authority found C more experienced than applicant but not satisfied applicant’s role too large for one person – Complaint made to K about applicant’s actions when requested to take injured employee to hospital – K told applicant should have driven employee but no warning issued – K held meeting with applicant, told applicant no pay rise and discussed K’s concerns about applicant’s personal calls – Applicant late for work and claimed did not have K or M’s number – K told applicant should have contacted K – Applicant claimed K acted unfairly as often worked through breaks – Applicant told M at later meeting often worked through breaks and discussed comments K allegedly made about applicant – K claimed applicant’s work not up to standard or timely - Regular weekly meetings held between applicant and K about workload and K’s expectations of applicant – Authority found applicant did not tell M work had increased until four months after K started - Found did not tell respondent could not manage workload until six months after K started - Applicant had meeting with M as K allegedly made demeaning comments about applicant to other employees – M and K introduced performance plan for applicant – Authority found applicant advised as K assessing workload not to seek assistance from other employees, rather to seek K’s assistance – Authority found respondent unaware of stress-related symptoms applicant suffering until after resignation and medical certificates supplied – Found respondent recognised applicant had difficulty with workload and removed some duties – Found actions of respondent reasonable and where new tasks allocated appropriate training and assistance given – Found no evidence K made demeaning comments about applicant – No disadvantage – Found when respondent aware applicant not coping with workload took reasonable steps to reduce workload and monitor performance – Found not reasonably foreseeable applicant would resign – No dismissal - Receptionist |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 s6 |
| Cases Cited | Attorney-General v Gilbert [2002] ERNZ 31;Auckland Shop Employees IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 372 |
| Number of Pages | 25 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_87.pdf [pdf 74 KB] |