| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 208 |
| Determination date | 25 September 2012 |
| Member | C Hickey |
| Representation | R Hutchison (in person) ; M Kirk |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Hutchison v Nelson City Council |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Whether grievance raised within 90 days – Authority found letter sent to applicant setting out respondent’s findings of misconduct detailed and applicant must have known respondent’s reasons for dismissing applicant before attempting to raise grievance – Found letter from applicant’s counsel (“Z”) did not disclose even scant detail of why applicant believed unjustifiably dismissed – Found Z’s letter gave insufficient information to enable respondent to address personal grievance of unjustified dismissal – Found grievance not raised within 90 days – Executive assistant |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as executive assistant. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Respondent claimed grievance not raised within 90 days. Following disciplinary process respondent sent applicant letter setting out findings made on allegations against applicant. Applicant dismissed. Two and a half months later applicant’s counsel (“Z”) wrote to respondent giving notice of applicant’s personal grievance of unjustified dismissal. Respondent replied stating Z’s letter did not provide sufficient detail to amount to raising of grievance. Applicant claimed respondent’s failure to advise applicant clearly and adequately of facts surrounding applicant’s dismissal formed basis of grievance. Applicant claimed Z’s letter to respondent requested precise statement of reasons for dismissal but respondent failed to provide these. Respondent claimed number of documents provided to applicant during disciplinary process gave applicant knowledge of reasons for dismissal.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE: Applicant had opportunity to request respondent provide written statement of reasons for dismissal if applicant unaware of these. Letter sent to applicant setting out respondent’s findings of misconduct detailed and applicant must have known reasons for dismissal before Z’s letter sent. Z’s letter did not disclose even scant detail of why applicant believed unjustifiably dismissed. After respondent replied stating did not consider sufficient detail provided, sufficient time for applicant to set out which aspects of disciplinary process, conclusions reached or reasons given gave rise to personal grievance. Z’s letter gave insufficient information to enable respondent to address personal grievance of unjustified dismissal. Grievance not raised within 90 days. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s114;ERA s114(1);ERA s114(3);ERA s114(4);ERA s114(5);ERA s114(6);ERA s115;ERA s115(d);ERA s120;ERA s120(1) |
| Cases Cited | Barker v Idea Services Ltd (in stat man) [2011] NZERA Auckland 409;Coy v Commissioner of Police unreported, Colgan CJ, 19 November 2007, CC23/07;Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] ERNZ 517;Dickson v Unilever New Zealand Ltd (2009) 6 NZELR 463;Faith v Taonga Imports Ltd unreported, M Urlich, 28 August 2007, AA261/07;Idea Services Ltd (in stat man) v Barker [2012] NZEmpC 112;Melville v Air New Zealand Ltd (2011) 9 NZELC 93,700;Winstone Wallboards Ltd v Samate [1993] 1 ERNZ 503 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_208.pdf [pdf 218 KB] |