Employee allegedly made inappropriate comments about colleagues
An employee who had her work-from-home request rejected has failed to prove to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) that she was constructively dismissed by her employer.
The employee was a senior account manager of an Auckland-based marketing agency. As heard by the ERA, the case stems after her request to work from home (WFH) in March 2021 was rejected by her managing director, who was under the impression that the employee accepted the rejection.
Instead, the employee reportedly talked about her rejected request to other staff members, with one colleague saying she was "expressing her unhappiness about the proposal rejection."
The senior account manager, however, denied that she told others that she was unhappy with it, adding that she only informed them about the decision because they were asking about it. She also said she would "never backstab" her boss after the company had done so much for her, the ERA heard.
In the employer's attempt to clarify the situation, she spoke to other employees regarding the conversations they had with the senior account manager, where she learned that a new staff member was uncomfortable about several conversations she had with the employee.
This staff member also said the employee was unhappy with the company rejecting her WFH request, while further alleging that she made "inappropriate negative comments about several other staff."
In another matter, the same staff member also said her colleague requested the title "sales lead" to be under her name. The case was a "breach of trust," according to the managing director, as leads were to be allocated by the sales manager.
The employee later admitted that what she did was "a mistake."
In a meeting in April 2021, the employer and employee discussed the matters raised against the latter, who later said she would resign, while allowing the managing director to tell staff that she did so because she wanted a job that allows her to work from home.
The resignation letter was delivered 15 minutes after the meeting concluded, and staff members were informed about employee's departure.
That night, however, the employee sent another email to her boss attempting to retract her resignation, asking if she could come back the day after as she "now regrets" the decision. The managing director, however, denied her attempt, noting that she had "already acted on it."
After failing to plead her case, the employee raised the grievance to the ERA, alleging that she was constrictively dismissed.
The ERA sided with the employer in a ruling made in late April.
"[The employee] has not established that she was disadvantaged by any unjustified action of [the employer] or was constructively dismissed," the ERA said in its decision.
According to the ERA, the employer did not unfairly put the employee in a position where she had no choice between resignation and dismissal.
"I do not accept that the company deliberately acted in such a way as to put pressure on its employee to resign," the ERA said.
On the matter of retraction, employers are also entitled to consider the repeated acceptances of wrongdoing by an employee when considering such request.
"She had decided to leave. Staff had been informed. In those circumstances the failure to agree to a retraction of resignation was not unfair or unreasonable," the ERA said.
