Search Results

1. [2020] NZEmpC 46 JCE v The Department of Corrections [pdf, 321 KB]

   ...distress and that was not disturbed in the subsequent appeal. In that case the employee had been a probation officer exposed to unnecessary and avoidable workplace stress over many years, arising from work overload, management failure and office and resource deficiencies.15 He had suffered a severe impact on his health as a result of the breaches and was found to be significantly disabled because of the employer’s actions. [51] In Brickell, which was an action in tort, the Hig...

2. [2019] NZEmpC 54 Hong v Auckland Transport [pdf, 437 KB]

   ...places him at risk of harm; (ii) places other officers and members of the public at risk of harm; (iii) means that AT would have to ensure that Mr Hong had another parking officer with him at all times, which is not an efficient use of AT’s resources and would also place that parking officer at risk of harm; (c) AT has lost trust and confidence in Mr Hong. Safety is the key reason given by AT for reinstatement not being appropriate. Both parties gave extensive submiss...

3. [2023] NZEmpC 179 Pyne v Invacare New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...workplace culture report. It is apparent that the report was prompted by a range of issues within the company’s Auckland office. The report writer spoke to a selected group of staff, including Ms Lincoln, the staff member and Mr Cotter (the human resources manager). Mr Pyne was not spoken to by the report writer. [8] Ms Lincoln had a meeting with Mr Pyne about the 2019 events and other issues on 6 January 2020. She prepared a file note of her discussion and followed up with...

4. [2013] NZEmpC 81 Brake v Grace Team Accounting Ltd [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...viewing discretionary costs, improving the efficiency of administration work and arranging a meeting with the bank manager to outline the problems and to seek support by way of additional facilities. He decided that he needed to get legal and human resources advice should redundancies be needed as he had not ever made any staff redundant in the past. He sent an email to Wendy Macphail of Employment Law Services on the morning of Saturday 10 April 2010 in which he stated: I have...

5. [2016] NZEmpC 42 ITE v ALA [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...shared services project; criticisms the plaintiff had of management within the defendant organisation; concerns relating to perceived flaws in the defendant’s security systems; perceived IT risks for both the defendant and other organisations; resourcing concerns and concerns relating to the competency of other employees of the defendant; concerns about the defendant’s financial expenditure; a perceived personal vendetta against the plaintiff by senior management, characterised...

6. [2010] NZEmpC 72 Horton v Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...through to Peter Jepsen, PAE’s maintenance planner. [6] In a later investigation meeting, held on Wednesday 20 May 2009, there is a record of what Mr Jepsen told Brian Purser, Fonterra’s Maintenance Manager, and Emma Bennett, Fonterra’s Human Resources Adviser on the site, concerning the removal of the iron. Comparing the record of that interview with Mr Jepsen and Mr Horton’s account to Fonterra, it is common ground that Mr Horton told Mr Jepsen he wanted to take some r...

7. [2017] NZEmpC 40 XYZ v ABC [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...defendant’s protected disclosure policy reflects the provisions of the Protected Disclosures Act. [11] Serious wrongdoing is defined in the Protected Disclosures Act as including the unlawful, corrupt or irregular use of public funds or public resources. The Act contains a number of protections for staff who make a protected disclosure, including that the person receiving the disclosure must use their best endeavours to keep confidential the identity of the disclosing party unle...

8. Henton v REAA, Max House & Barfoot & Thompson Ltd [2013] NZREADT 18 [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...its way through the system with the Real Estate Agents Authority; (b) His separate complaint about the complaint-handling process, which was dismissed by the Committee; and (c) The present appeal against that dismissal taking up time and resources of the Tribunal. The second respondents understand the Authority's wish to try to widen the scope as much as possible for potential unsatisfactory conduct findings, but it is submitted that the present attempts are taking this...

9. LCRO 45 and 46/2014 PO v RQ and FE [pdf, 273 KB]

   ...who was an accountant, and who had looked at the books of the business. He said that the real estate agent who brokered the agreement had said that “everything was legal”. [45] Mr PO also went to the Council in [City] to enquire about any resource consent issues. 11 [46] It is clear that Mr PO holds Mrs FE and to a lesser extent Mr RQ responsible for the failure of the business. He calculated his losses as being in the region of $150,000. Mrs FE’s submissions at hear...

10. LCRO 98/2018 and 201/2018 HK v CN (22 May 2019) [pdf, 238 KB]

    ...Neither the developer nor Mr CN cancelled the purchase agreement within the following 10 working days. The condition was therefore deemed waived on 22 February 2016. [6] The statutory condition imported into the purchase agreement by s 225 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (s 225 condition) was stated to be “modified so that [Mr CN’s] rights” under s 225(2)(b) did “not arise until [8 February 2016]”.3 [7] A month later, on 9 March 2016, Mr CN entered into an agreement...