Resink v Employment Services Limited [2025] NZERA 104 - constructive dismissal after continuing good-faith breaches

Employment Services Limited raised serious allegations against recruitment consultant Frank Resink but did not adequately identify the case against him or supply requested information. While he was on stress leave, an unagreed and intimidating visit to recover his company vehicle became the last straw. The ERA found an unjustified constructive dismissal.

An unclear disciplinary investigation

Mr Resink had worked for the labour-hire business for approximately two years. In April 2023 he was called to a disciplinary meeting. The employer raised concerns about his dealings with a candidate and later alleged deletion of company information.

The ERA found the employer did not clearly identify everything being investigated. It continued asserting that Mr Resink understood the concerns while adding allegations and refusing requests for supporting information, including material attributed to an IT specialist.

That approach breached good faith, including the duties to communicate constructively and provide relevant information before making decisions capable of adversely affecting continued employment.

Stress leave and the vehicle incident

Mr Resink went on sick leave because of stress. While he remained away, the employer decided to recover his company vehicle. The director and another worker arrived at Mr Resink's home without an agreed collection arrangement.

The worker approached the house while the director remained nearby. Mr Resink was told police would be called if he did not provide the keys. The Authority accepted that the incident was intimidating, particularly in light of the uncertainty and unresolved disciplinary allegations that preceded it.

Retrieving the vehicle did not itself amount to an unequivocal direct dismissal. However, it was the last straw in the continuing breach of good faith and reinforced Mr Resink's conclusion that trust and confidence had irretrievably broken down.

Why the resignation became a dismissal

A constructive dismissal may arise where a serious employer breach causes the employee to resign and resignation is reasonably foreseeable. Deliberate intent to force resignation is not required under that branch of the test.

Employment Services knew that the disciplinary uncertainty and lack of information were affecting Mr Resink. It remained professionally represented but continued the deficient process. The Authority found its ongoing good-faith breach caused the resignation and was sufficiently serious that resignation ought reasonably to have been foreseen.

Remedies and contribution

The dismissal affected Mr Resink's health, confidence and family life. The Authority awarded $15,000 compensation and three months' lost wages of $17,500.08 gross.

The Authority considered whether delay in returning equipment and passwords justified a contribution reduction. Mr Resink had acted after consulting his representative, and the conduct did not justify reducing the remedies.

Why this case matters

Resink v Employment Services demonstrates how disciplinary-process failures can become a constructive dismissal even where the employer says it intends the relationship to continue. Maintaining vague allegations, withholding relevant information and taking intimidating action against an employee on stress leave can collectively make resignation foreseeable.

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.