| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 350 |
| Hearing date | 4 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 08 August 2011 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | S Austin ; M Kyne |
| Location | Whakatane |
| Parties | Hauraro v D & J Grindley Supermarket Ltd t/a Riverslea Mall Supervalue |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged and dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed resigned because team leader (“K”) exposed applicant’s mental illness to staff and had to find someone to cover shift in order to attend funeral – Applicant told store manager (“T”) felt depressed and on medication and not to tell anyone else except respondent co-owners – T claimed only told co-owners – Applicant found out nephew died and told K needed to attend tangi next day as had special connection with nephew – Applicant later admitted no special connection with nephew – K told applicant to talk to co-worker (“B”) to swap shifts – B told applicant of conversation with co-worker (“J”) about applicant being mentally ill – Applicant claimed B said K had mocked applicant – B claimed did not mention K during conversation – Applicant accused K of telling people about applicant’s mental illness – K denied allegation – Applicant gave resignation letter to T after T attempted to discuss issues with applicant – Co-owner (“D”) claimed attempted to discuss issues with applicant and when applicant refused told applicant could leave without having to work out notice – Applicant claimed D said what was claimed in letter of resignation true but did not want to go into details – Applicant left workplace – Authority found most staff were more likely than not to have known applicant depressed or feeling unwell from seeing applicant at work and social events – Found K did not make alleged comments about applicant’s mental health – Found B and J discussed applicant’s mental health but simply gossip for which respondent not responsible – Found K’s actions on day applicant resigned did not induce resignation of applicant – Found not unreasonable for applicant to have to check whether someone could cover shift – Found misleading of applicant to overstate closeness of connection with nephew – Found applicant’s resignation not made in heat of the moment as applicant had general discussion about resigning with husband night before resigning and several hours passed between applicant confronting K and resigning – Found no constructive dismissal – Found D could not have known true state of affairs when spoke with applicant at time of resignation – Found D’s attempts to investigate applicant’s concerns consisted of only cursory conversation with J – Found applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by not having concerns properly investigated and by not having discussion with employer in private place – REMEDIES – One third contributory conduct – Found reduction appropriate due to applicant’s failure to properly discuss concerns with T or D before resigning and not being frank about basis for seeking leave for tangi – Found D’s actions contributed to applicant’s feelings of distress, embarrassment and collapse of confidence that impacted on family life and social contact – $4,000 compensation appropriate – Checkout Operator |
| Result | Application granted ; Contributory conduct (33.3%) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000 reduced to $4,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s174;ERA Second Schedule cl10 |
| Cases Cited | PB0 Ltd v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_350.pdf [pdf 39 KB] |