Employment Services Limited v Resink [2026] NZEmpC 186 - constructive dismissal upheld

Employment Services Limited, trading as Canstaff, challenged the ERA finding that Frank Resink had been constructively dismissed. The Employment Court heard the case afresh and reached the same result: continuing good-faith breaches culminated in an intimidating visit to Mr Resink's home, making his resignation reasonably foreseeable.

Serious allegations without adequate particulars

Mr Resink worked as a recruitment consultant for Employment Services Limited. Until late April 2023 he was well regarded in the office. The relationship deteriorated when the employer called him to a disciplinary meeting concerning alleged serious misconduct.

The concerns included his dealings with a candidate and alleged deletion of company material. The Court found the allegations were not identified with sufficient clarity. Information requested by Mr Resink was not supplied, including material said to have come from an IT specialist, while the employer continued asserting that he already understood the case against him.

A disciplinary process does not become fair merely because the concerns are labelled serious. Good faith required responsive communication, sufficiently particularised allegations and relevant information so Mr Resink could answer them.

The company-vehicle visit became the last straw

Mr Resink went on medically supported stress leave. While he was away, the employer decided to recover his company vehicle. Its managing director and another worker went to Mr Resink's home without first reaching agreement with him about collection.

The other worker approached the house while the director waited nearby. Mr Resink was told that police would be called if he did not hand over the keys. Against the background of unresolved allegations and withheld information, the incident left him feeling intimidated.

The vehicle incident was not assessed in isolation. It continued and intensified the existing breach of good faith. Mr Resink resigned the following day, relying on the employer's conduct as the final straw.

Why the resignation was a constructive dismissal

The Court found the employer had not acted actively and constructively to maintain a productive employment relationship. Its failure to clarify the disciplinary case and provide requested information continued while Mr Resink was absent with work-related stress.

The unagreed recovery of the vehicle reinforced the impression that the relationship had broken down. The employer's breaches caused the resignation, were sufficiently serious and made resignation reasonably foreseeable. Mr Resink was therefore unjustifiably constructively dismissed.

No contribution or reduction for later-discovered conduct

The employer relied on alleged untruthfulness, delayed return of equipment, business activities and other conduct when seeking a remedy reduction. The Court distinguished conduct that contributed to the grievance from matters discovered only afterwards.

Later-discovered conduct can affect remedies only where it is truly significant. The matters established here did not meet that threshold and did not amount to blameworthy contribution. The ERA awards were left unreduced.

Why this case matters

Employment Services Ltd v Resink is useful authority on cumulative constructive dismissal. A single act need not carry the whole case. Vague serious allegations, failure to disclose information, unresponsive communications and an intimidating retrieval of company property may collectively destroy trust and confidence and make resignation foreseeable.

The judgment also limits attempts to reduce remedies through peripheral or subsequently discovered allegations. The conduct must be blameworthy and connected to the situation giving rise to the grievance, or truly significant if discovered only after dismissal.

Read the full Employment Court judgment

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 Court judgment and the underlying Employment Relations Authority determination.