| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 154 |
| Hearing date | 24 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 11 October 2011 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | J Firth ; R Gibson |
| Location | Timaru |
| Parties | Felts v McCain Foods (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – Applicant claimed had no option but to resign as respondent breached good faith obligations – Respondent claimed conducted full and fair investigation before issuing applicant with first written warning – Parties’ employment agreement (“EA”) provided that before employees given warning respondent would explain alleged misconduct and employee had opportunity to explain – Applicant’s notice of resignation claimed trust and confidence so damaged by matters over previous months and written warning had to resign – Applicant’s role required use of small paring knife - Co-worker (“R”) complained to manager (“S’”) applicant had argued with and verbally abused R while holding knife – Team leader (“M”) met with employees individually to investigate complaint – Applicant claimed felt isolated as only employee not told to speak to M – Authority found respondent not giving applicant opportunity to comment on incident informally did not breach respondent’s obligations – Applicant claimed felt stressed and anxious when told about disciplinary meeting as respondent did not specify allegations and claimed respondent’s decision predetermined – Found respondent not specifying allegations before meeting procedurally unfair however applicant told specific allegations before required to give explanation – Applicant on sick leave until resignation – Parties disputed whether applicant agreed at meeting was banging knife during incident – Applicant later claimed did not recall banging knife – Found applicant had opportunity to give explanation at meeting – S concluded applicant had shouted at co-workers but not verbally abusive however applicant’s handling of knife health and safety was concern – Respondent issued written warning as applicant had breached employee handbook rules – Found respondent’s decision not predetermined – Found respondent had not breached good faith obligations and applicant had not raised other matters with respondent – Found fair and reasonable employer would have concluded incident took place and issued warning – Found respondent’s failure to specify allegations earlier was not sufficiently serious breach that was reasonably foreseeable applicant would resign – Found applicant took further steps in good faith after received applicant’s resignation and applicant had alternatives to resignation – No constructive dismissal - Trimmer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers’ IUOW Inc [1994] 1 ERNZ 168;Auckland Shop Employees’ IUOW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] 2 ACJ 963 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_154.pdf [pdf 62 KB] |