| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 423 |
| Hearing date | 15 Aug 2012 - 16 Aug 2012 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 28 November 2012 |
| Member | R Larmer |
| Representation | M Moncur ; S Turner, C Bates |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Rhind v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant justifiably dismissed for accessing files of friends and family – Authority found applicant understood specific disciplinary allegations – Found applicant failed to expressly raise belief existence of common practice condoned by management for work brokers to place friends and family in work before dismissal – Found respondent conducted full and fair investigation – Found relevant codes of conduct clear applicant not to access client files of people known to applicant regardless of purpose for accessing files or position held by person accessing files – Found no credible evidence of custom or practice for work brokers to place friends and family in work or managers aware of alleged custom or practice - Found applicant aware obligated to comply with code of conduct and received training on various codes of conduct throughout employment – Found reasonable grounds for respondent to conclude applicant engaged in serious misconduct – Found respondent took protection of clients’ personal information and integrity of benefit system very seriously and important respondent seen to be administering government funds fairly and responsibly – Dismissal justified – Work broker |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as work broker. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Respondent claimed applicant committed serious breaches of respondent’s code of conduct by inappropriately accessing records of applicant’s friends and family. After disciplinary meeting applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed respondent did not follow fair procedure. Applicant claimed actions not serious misconduct as only accessed records of friends and family to help them get work and code of conduct allowed access to such files for ‘business purposes’. Applicant claimed restriction in code of conduct about working with friends and family related to case managers dealing with money rather than work brokers. Applicant claimed management knew of and condoned common practice for work brokers to place friends and family in work. Applicant claimed not trained properly in code of conduct and actions should be treated as performance issue rather than serious misconduct. Applicant claimed mitigating factors not considered. Respondent claimed considered other sanctions but concluded did not have trust and confidence in applicant given applicant’s continued insistence had done nothing wrong.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant understood specific disciplinary allegations and on notice fully of matters required to respond to. Applicant failed to expressly raise belief existence of common practice condoned by management for work brokers to place friends and family in work before dismissal. Respondent not required to make further inquiries into whether applicant placed or referred people close to applicant into work given applicant’s admission had done so. Respondent’s decision not predetermined. Applicant’s reference during disciplinary meeting to specific project limited to identification of people known to applicant placed into jobs by applicant and never linked to common practice by work brokers or management knowledge of such practice. Respondent conducted full and fair investigation. Relevant codes of conduct clear applicant not to access client files of people known to applicant regardless of purpose for accessing files or position held by person accessing files. No credible evidence of custom or practice for work brokers to place friends and family in work or managers aware of alleged custom or practice. Applicant aware obligated to comply with code of conduct, received training on various codes of conduct throughout employment and required to sign regular declarations understood code of conduct. Unreasonable for applicant to claim not aware prohibited from accessing files of friends or family and reasonable for respondent to conclude applicant’s actions involved serious misconduct rather than performance issues. Reasonable grounds for respondent to conclude applicant engaged in serious misconduct. Respondent took protection of clients’ personal information and integrity of benefit system very seriously and important respondent seen to be administering government funds fairly and responsibly. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(2);ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(3)(a);ERA s103A(3)(b);ERA s103A(3)(c);ERA s103A(3)(d);ERA s103A(5) |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_423.pdf [pdf 268 KB] |