DWYER v OAKVUE BLOODSTOCK LIMITED [2025] NZERA 251

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, Ms Dwyer raises claims of sexual harassment in relation to communications including text messages during her employment, unjustified disadvantage, unjustified constructive dismissal and breaches of the employer's duty of good faith. After that, the employer also says it was not clear how Ms Dwyer was disadvantaged in her employment, Ms Dwyer resigned in circumstances which do not amount to a constructive dismissal and it did not breach its duty of good faith to her. Later, In addition, clarification was provided of the basis for Ms Dwyer's claims to have been unjustifiably constructively dismissed by the employer, sexually harassed in her employment with the employer or unjustifiably disadvantaged by the employer. The determination records that As Ms Dwyer's dismissal claim was based on a course of conduct which included actions said to amount to disadvantage or sexual harassment, I have considered those claims first. The Authority notes that For example, Ms Dwyer said at the investigation meeting she had raised concerns verbally with Ms Harris about how she was generally treated and feeling she was brushed off, and alleged Ms Harris' response included comments such as (quoted wording omitted), (quoted wording omitted) and (quoted wording omitted). Ultimately, The Authority found it more likely than not on some occasions Mr Manning yelled at Ms Dwyer in addition to the occasions on which he acknowledged yelling at her and other staff where there were immediate safety concerns, including critiquing her when he was not satisfied with her performance at work. In the end, In the context of the power imbalance between Mr Manning and Ms Dwyer, and the age difference between them, The Authority found Mr Manning's inappropriate communication style amounted to bullying of Ms Dwyer and a breach of the employer's health and safety obligations to Ms Dwyer.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are DWYER (employee) and OAKVUE BLOODSTOCK LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 18 December 2024 and by AVL.
• Authority member: Shane Kinley.

Key events described

• Ms Dwyer raises claims of sexual harassment in relation to communications including text messages during her employment, unjustified disadvantage, unjustified constructive dismissal and breaches of the employer's duty of good faith.
• the employer also says it was not clear how Ms Dwyer was disadvantaged in her employment, Ms Dwyer resigned in circumstances which do not amount to a constructive dismissal and it did not breach its duty of good faith to her.
• In addition, clarification was provided of the basis for Ms Dwyer's claims to have been unjustifiably constructively dismissed by the employer, sexually harassed in her employment with the employer or unjustifiably disadvantaged by the employer.
• As Ms Dwyer's dismissal claim was based on a course of conduct which included actions said to amount to disadvantage or sexual harassment, I have considered those claims first.
• For example, Ms Dwyer said at the investigation meeting she had raised concerns verbally with Ms Harris about how she was generally treated and feeling she was brushed off, and alleged Ms Harris' response included comments such as (quoted wording omitted), (quoted wording omitted) and (quoted wording omitted).
• The Authority found it more likely than not on some occasions Mr Manning yelled at Ms Dwyer in addition to the occasions on which he acknowledged yelling at her and other staff where there were immediate safety concerns, including critiquing her when he was not satisfied with her performance at work.
• In the context of the power imbalance between Mr Manning and Ms Dwyer, and the age difference between them, The Authority found Mr Manning's inappropriate communication style amounted to bullying of Ms Dwyer and a breach of the employer's health and safety obligations to Ms Dwyer.
• The legal approach to a constructive dismissal [57] A constructive dismissal occurs where an employee appears to have resigned but the situation is such the resignation has been forced or initiated by an action of the employer.
• These situations are not exhaustive:9 (a) Where the employee is given a choice of resignation or dismissal; (b) Where the employer has followed a course of conduct with the deliberate and dominant purpose of coercing an employee to resign; and (c) Where a breach of duty by the employer leads a worker to resign.
• At the investigation meeting Ms Dwyer's constructive dismissal claim was advised to be based on a course of conduct which included actions said to amount to disadvantage or sexual harassment.
• Ms Dwyer has the burden of establishing her resignation was a dismissal.
• Ms Dwyer sought a global award of compensation of $25,000 to $30,000 for hurt and humiliation under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act, in relation to her claims of sexual harassment, unjustified disadvantage and unjustified constructive dismissal.

Decision markers

• I am not satisfied Ms Dwyer has established breaches of the duty of good faith by the employer and in any event consider the impact of any such breaches would have been mixed with the impacts of the established unjustified disadvantage claim, so separate remedies would not have been appropriate.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $10,000
• Costs: Costs reserved.

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Constructive dismissal turns on whether the employer's conduct forced resignation in substance.
• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.

Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.