| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 281 |
| Determination date | 17 August 2012 |
| Member | R Larmer |
| Representation | I Gibson ; M McFadden, D Organ |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | O'Connor v Auckland Kindergarten Association |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Whether grievance raised within 90 days – Authority found letter from applicant’s advocate to respondent did not raise personal grievance and merely sought further information about applicant’s dismissal – Respondent had not impliedly accepted applicant raising grievance out of time - Applicant did not raise grievance within 90 day period and did not seek leave to raise grievance out of time - Application dismissed - Head Teacher |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as head teacher. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed. Respondent claimed applicant did not raise grievance within 90 days and did not consent to applicant raising grievance out of time. Matter dealt with on papers. Applicant claimed applicant’s advocate (“G”) gave respondent notice of personal grievance within 90 days and questioned respondent’s lack of procedure (“first letter”). First letter stated applicant had “raised matter within prescribed 90 day period.” Respondent claimed first reference to alleged unjustified dismissal not until letter from G respondent received two months later and outside 90 day period. G claimed respondent previously aware of applicant’s concerns and therefore must have been aware applicant would raise grievance if dismissed. Applicant claimed respondent human resources manager (“R”) told G respondent had been hoping applicant would not raise grievance within 90 day period.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE: Applicant’s claims applicant raised grievance before advocate sent first letter speculative and not supported by evidence. First letter applicant’s sole means of raising personal grievance. First letter did not raise personal grievance and merely sought further information about applicant’s dismissal as applicant had instructed advocate to review applicant’s dismissal. Authority not satisfied on balance of probabilities R made comment to G and even if R had made comments did amount to respondent’s implied acceptance of applicant raising grievance out of time. Applicant did not raise grievance within 90 day period and did not seek leave to raise grievance out of time. Application dismissed. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s114;ERA s114(1);ERA s114(3);ERA s114(4) |
| Cases Cited | Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] ERNZ 517;Dickson v Unilever New Zealand Ltd (2009) 6 NZELR 463;Ovation New Zealand Ltd v Puhia (2011) 8 NZELR 259 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_281.pdf [pdf 228 KB] |