| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 143 |
| Hearing date | 16 Feb 2012 |
| Determination date | 27 April 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | B Quarrie ; S Turner |
| Location | Whangarei |
| Parties | Drader v Chief Executive of The Ministry of Social Development |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Order prohibiting publication of names of respondent clients or any other identifying particulars – Applicant told client (“X”) unable to resolve X’s issue but would refer matter on to another employee – Applicant involved in fight with X following evening after X saw applicant again out of work hours – Both applicant and X sustained injuries - Applicant laid complaint with Police – Applicant reported incident to manager week later - Respondent received complaint from X – X claimed applicant had called X three days after incident and told X had “better watch yourself” – Applicant admitted had accessed confidential client records without authorisation to obtain X’s number and had threatened X – Investigation commenced and applicant suspended – X claimed had moved home to protect themselves after incident and no longer attended respondent office where applicant worked – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed respondent did not give applicant opportunity to comment before suspended – Authority found applicant’s actions showed errors of judgment so fundamental respondent no longer had trust and confidence in applicant – Found applicant’s failure to report incident until week later inexplicable – Found applicant under obligation to notify respondent of incident promptly – Found applicant had multiple opportunities during employment to confirm understood respondent policy on misuse of client information – Applicant claimed respondent notes of parties’ disciplinary meeting inaccurate - Respondent claimed evidence applicant had to be physically restrained immediately after fight raised grave concerns about applicant’s judgment under pressure - Found respondent conclusion on evidence applicant had to be physically restrained immediately after incident accurate – Found respondent fairly concluded applicant accessed X’s contact details as intended to threaten client after incident – Found respondent conducted proper investigation – Found respondent’s actions those of fair and reasonable employer and only available sanction was dismissal – Dismissal justified - RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Whether grievance raised within 90 days – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension - Found applicant’s unjustified disadvantage claim not raised by applicant within 90 days – Service Centre Manager |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl10(1) |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_143.pdf [pdf 46 KB] |