| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Wellington 117 |
| Hearing date | 31 May - 1 Jun 2011 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 08 July 2011 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | V Eades ; D Erickson |
| Location | Whanganui |
| Parties | Waldman v Farmlands Trading Society Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent – Applicant was business manager of Whanganui branch of respondent – Regional manager (“R”) raised concerns about performance of branch – Applicant claimed R unnecessarily repetitive and hostile – R accepted once thumped desk in frustration – Authority found applicant’s claims overstated – R continued to seek improvements from applicant after financial state of branch degenerated further – Found R did not threaten applicant with warning for poor performance – Applicant raised concerns about being bullied by R with general manager (“G”) – Applicant declined invitation to pursue formal complaint – G agreed to discuss with R interactions with direct reports – Found G did not tell applicant one option was to resign – Found G did not try to dissuade applicant from making complaint – G spoke to R on terms agreed with applicant – Applicant made no further complaints about R – Applicant sought no assistance for leading presentation for quarterly business review meeting – G criticised applicant for standard of presentation and used profanity – G frustrated applicant did not include share of wallet initiative – Found G very forceful in criticism – Found applicant did not mention share of wallet initiative in presentation – G told applicant placed on monthly reporting and if no improvement could be disciplinary consequences – R had two meetings with applicant – R sent issues discussed at meetings in email to applicant and told applicant disciplinary proceedings would be commenced if no improvement – Applicant told Chief Executive Officer of respondent (“CEO”) subject to bullying by R and close to resigning – CEO told applicant would investigate – Applicant resigned two days later – Found respondent entitled to pursue prospect of disciplinary action as problems at applicant’s branch not being resolved – Found prospect of disciplinary action applicant’s reason for resigning – Found applicant’s treatment by G unprofessional but not what caused applicant to resign – Found applicant not bullied by R – Found applicant’s resignation not heat of moment situation – Found although R could have treated applicant more professionally and G could have followed up applicant’s communications not reasonably foreseeable applicant would resign – Found in any event applicant’s claim could not succeed as applicant gave CEO no real opportunity to investigate before resigning and had no legitimate reason for doing so – No dismissal – No disadvantage – Business manager |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Wellington_117.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |