| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 28 |
| Hearing date | 4 Oct 2011 - 5 Oct 2011 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 29 March 2012 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | B Driver ; P McBride |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Terris v The Parliamentary Service |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Incompatibility – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant employed by respondent to assist member of parliament (“Q”) - Parties’ employment agreement (“EA”) provided that employment would terminate if irreconcilable breakdown in relationship between applicant and Q - Respondent claimed irreconcilable breakdown in applicant and Q’s relationship and employment terminated in accordance with EA – Applicant politically active in community while employed by respondent – Authority found applicant made clear to respondent would continue community and political activities during employment – Q concerned about applicant’s involvement as trustee of charitable trust (“H”) and complaints applicant made about other trustees – Trustees involved in community activities and Q wanted to develop strong relationship – Respondent told applicant no direct conflict of interest but applicant’s involvement in H could be perceived as conflict of interest and create embarrassment for Q – Respondent requested applicant not make media statements about H – Applicant sought clarification of respondent’s request – Respondent requested applicant check public statements where was potential for conflict of interest with respondent before release – Applicant made public statements about H before heard back from respondent - Applicant’s comments published in local newspaper – Applicant claimed had been attempts to “gag” applicant from making public comments and pressured by Q – Q claimed had been dragged into H matter had nothing to do with and could affect public perception of Q – Respondent held meeting with applicant and Q – Q claimed relationship with applicant had broken down – Applicant claimed before employment commenced not aware could not make public statements and that involvement with H should not impact Q’s public profile – Q claimed informal attempts to resolve issue unsuccessful – Respondent general manager claimed if Q believed political career negatively affected by applicant’s actions was irreconcilable breakdown of relationship - Respondent told applicant EA irreconcilable breakdown clause applied and employment terminated - Found applicant aware worked in highly political environment – Found applicant should have been aware that own political activities should not impact negatively on Q – Found relationship between applicant and Q completely irreconcilable primarily due to applicant’s political activities and statements – Found respondent attempted to resolve H matter – Found applicant’s comments about H designed to embarrass respondent and Q and applicant could have raised concerns with respondent privately – Found applicant aware of triangular employment difficulties as covered in EA – Found respondent’s investigation of matter fair - Found respondent’s actions those of fair and reasonable employer – Dismissal justified |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s66;ERA s238;New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s14 |
| Cases Cited | Arthur C Riley & Co Ltd v Wood [2008] ERNZ 462;Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan (No. 2) [2005] ERNZ 767;Harris v Chief Executive, Department of Corrections [2001] 1 ERNZ 544;Lowe v Tararua District Council [1994] 1 ERNZ 887;NZ Fire Service Commission v Reid [1998] 2 ERNZ 250 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_28.pdf [pdf 66 KB] |