| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 106 |
| Hearing date | 19 - 21 Nov 2012 |
| Determination date | 28 March 2013 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | C Boell ; A Russell |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Jones v Waitemata District Health Board |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s investigation process and demotion – Multiple complaints of bullying made against applicant – Whether complainants collaborated and should have been investigated independently - Whether investigator biased – Whether appropriate to look at past behaviour – Alternative positions offered to applicant - Applicant sought reinstatement – Clinical charge nurse |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND-;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Appropriate for respondent to investigate complaints and conduct single inquiry. Applicant unhelpful in investigation. No bias. Accessing personnel file necessary for full investigation. Applicant removed from position as behaviour incompatible with role. Appropriate for respondent to remove applicant from position of responsibility and offer alternative role. Applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s investigation process or demotion. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103(5) - ERA s103A – ERA s103A(3) - ERA s103A(5) |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (No 2) [2011] ERNZ 466;Clear v Waikato District Health Board [2008] ERNZ 646;Waikato District Health Board v Clear [2010] NZCA 305 |
| Number of Pages | 19 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_106.pdf [pdf 289 KB] |