| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 184 |
| Hearing date | 2 Apr 2012 |
| Determination date | 31 May 2012 |
| Member | R Larmer |
| Representation | P Pa'u ; P Skelton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Moore v Electrix Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent decision to issue warning - Authority found respondent withheld information from applicant and applicant not given opportunity to comment - Found no reason to give applicant final written warning - Found substantial procedural defects in respondent's investigation - Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent issuing applicant with final written warning - REMEDIES - 10 per cent contributory conduct - $5,400 compensation appropriate |
| Abstract | Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's decision to issue warning. Respondent claimed applicant refused to comply with reasonable instruction that applicant provide information about applicant's next of kin for respondent's records and misled respondent about whether had information. Respondent issued applicant with final written warning. Respondent claimed applicant admitted had misled respondent manager (X") about whether applicant had requested information. Applicant later provided information to X.;AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Respondent did not deal with applicant in good faith and not responsive or communicative with applicant. Respondent withheld information from applicant and applicant not given opportunity to comment. Applicant disadvantaged by final written warning as applicant's employment less secure if further complaints made. Respondent did not investigate allegation applicant refused to provide next of kin information. Applicant actually disciplined for allegation misled respondent X but allegation not raised fairly with applicant. Applicant complied with respondent's request and no reason to give applicant final written warning. Substantial procedural defects in respondent's investigation. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent issuing applicant with final written warning. REMEDIES: 10 per cent contributory conduct. Applicant extremely distressed when respondent refused to specify allegations before disciplinary meeting and applicant required to comment on new matters first raised at meeting. Applicant required to sit beside co-worker involved in incident during lengthy disciplinary process causing applicant significant stress. Higher compensation award than usual appropriate in circumstances. $5,400 compensation appropriate.;PENALTY: Respondent's failure to comply with good faith obligations serious and sustained but not deliberate. No penalty." |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage); Contributory conduct (10%) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,400) ; Application dismissed (penalty) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1);ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s4A;ERA s4A(a);ERA s103(1)(b;ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(3)(a);ERA s103A(3)(b);ERA s103A(3)(c);ERA s103A(3)(d);ERA s103A(5);ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (2011) 9 NZELC 94,015 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_184.pdf [pdf 140 KB] |