| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 45 |
| Hearing date | 4 - 6 Sep 2012 |
| Determination date | 08 February 2013 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | S Fox ; S Webster |
| Location | Hastings |
| Parties | Fox v Hereworth School Trust Board |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Whether applicant failed to meet respondent and respond to allegations – Whether applicant instructed to alter previous year’s grades retrospectively – Vice-chairman of School Board engaged as “independent consultant” – Whether applicant threatened if applicant discussed concerns publicly – Whether respondent should apologise for alleged threat to applicant – Whether dispute concerned interpersonal conflicts or educational standards – Refusal to communicate with certain individuals – Warning for refusing to attend meeting – Whether guests to applicant’s house monitored – Whether applicant received invitation to disciplinary meeting – Decision to dismiss made without personal appearance by applicant – Applicant on maternity leave – Teacher |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent had right to seek to ensure consistency of marking and that applicant conforming to previously agreed process. Respondent entitled to seek resolution of one or more employment relationship problems. “Independent consultant” not independent and applicant did not understand extent of inquiry. Applicant did not receive invitation to disciplinary meeting. Applicant’s refusal to participate in dispute resolution without preconditions or refusal to engage with particular parties breach of good faith. By time of disciplinary meeting trust and confidence between parties had broken down. Respondent did all reasonably could to encourage applicant to engage. In unique circumstances of case respondent did not breach obligations by proceeding with disciplinary meeting in applicant’s absence. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s4;ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s236(3) |
| Cases Cited | Radius Residential Care Ltd v McLeay [2010] ERNZ 371;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825;Wilson v Pet Stay Ltd [2012] NZERA Wellington 153 |
| Number of Pages | 37 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_45.pdf [pdf 312 KB] |