| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 418 |
| Hearing date | 3 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 23 September 2011 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | D Hallie (in person) ; P Shaw |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hallie v Richmond New Zealand Inc |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Respondent claimed unjustified dismissal grievance not raised within 90 days – Authority found applicant raised unjustified disadvantage grievance within 90 days and applicant relied on same evidence for both grievances – Found appropriate to proceed with substantive investigation and reserve question of whether unjustified dismissal grievance could be considered – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by respondent – Respondent implemented new roster – Respondent human resources advisor (“T”) told applicant that could only choose one position in redeployment process – T confirmed with applicant that if redeployed to mobile job all terms and conditions would remain the same and service would be continuous – Applicant claimed respondent mobile service manager (“D”) said applicant would be able to pick up vehicle – D denied giving any guarantee about vehicle pick up – Applicant did not raise issue of vehicle pick up with T – Applicant told unable to pick up vehicle – Applicant declined to take up new position – T offered applicant several other redeployment options – Applicant claimed left with no choice but to resign due to change to terms and conditions of new position – Found reasonable for respondent to tell staff that could only make one choice in redeployment process – Found D did not give applicant guarantee about vehicle pick up – Found vehicle pick up did not form part of terms and conditions of employment offered to applicant – Found applicant had to bear some responsibility for situation – Found respondent did everything possible to accommodate applicant’s wishes – No disadvantage – Dismissal justified – Community Service Worker |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | National Union of Public Employees Inc v Richmond Fellowship New Zealand Ltd unreported, H Doyle, 9 April 2010, CA87/10 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_418.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |