| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 54 |
| Determination date | 24 May 2012 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | P Cranney ; B Dorking |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Rochford v Vice-Chancellor, University of Otago |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor Performance - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Authority found applicant did not have opportunity to comment on reviews of applicant's work - Found respondent's decision to dismiss substantively justified but procedurally unfair - Dismissal unjustified - REMEDIES - No contributory conduct - $4,500 compensation appropriate - Lecturer |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as lecturer. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant employed on probationary period while seeking to be confirmed as lecturer. Applicant failed to submit sufficient quality assured manuscripts for publication by deadline. Applicant submitted article not quality assured for publication after deadline. Applicant's head of department concluded article not suitable for publication and recommended applicant not be confirmed as lecturer. Respondent's Staffing Advisory Committee (SAC") arranged for article to be 'blind reviewed' by another lecturer. Reviewer concluded article not of acceptable standard. Applicant provided with reviewer's report and given four days to respond. Applicant unable to prepare response in time for SAC meeting. SAC meeting held without applicant. Respondent's employee ("D") not member of SAC but attended meeting and made comments prejudicial to applicant. SAC decided not to confirm applicant as lecturer. Applicant's internal appeals unsuccessful. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed respondent should have allowed applicant to comment on information supplied at SAC meeting and blind review. Applicant claimed respondent did not consider alternative positions for applicant.;AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant should have had opportunity to comment on negative report by D to SAC. Subsequent internal appeals did not provide remedy because applicant unaware of D's comments. Respondent not obliged to provide applicant copies of all evaluative material but applicant did not have reasonable opportunity to respond to blind review. Respondent entitled to not confirm applicant as lecturer. Respondent considered alternative employment opportunities and entitled to decide to dismiss applicant. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $4,500 compensation appropriate." |
| Result | Application granted; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,500); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Nelson Air Ltd v New Zealand Airline Pilots Assoc [1994] 2 ERNZ 665;Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley (2011) 9 NZELC 93,782 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_54.pdf [pdf 172 KB] |