| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 327 |
| Hearing date | 16 Jul 2013 - 17 Jul 2013 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 31 July 2013 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | R Harrison, E McWatt ; K Beck, T Oldfield |
| Location | Whangarei |
| Parties | Edwards v Carol Anderson, Limited Statutory Manager of Bay of Islands College |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Dismissal justified |
| Abstract | Applicant (Mr Edwards) employed by respondent (Carol Anderson, Limited Statutory Manager of Bay of Islands College) as principal (Education and Training Sector). Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. School Board of Trustees (“Board”) concerned about deteriorating relationship with applicant and sought assistance from Ministry of Education. First limited statutory manager (“P”) formed negative view of applicant’s methods. P gathered material to send change of leadership style warning letter to applicant but resigned before letter sent. Respondent appointed limited statutory manager after P’s resignation. After reviewing situation, respondent wrote to applicant and emphasised applicant required to change style of operation. Applicant claimed respondent developed negative approach towards applicant immediately. During remainder of year respondent developed concerns about accuracy of information provided to respondent or Board by applicant. Respondent concerned about accuracy of NCEA data and material relating to staff survey. Respondent wrote to applicant stating applicant had not taken ownership of contribution to current situation in School, considered applicant’s behaviour breach of employment agreement, sought response and warned dismissal possible. Two months later respondent implemented formal support and guidance plan. One month later respondent received complaint from staff-member (“X”) about applicant’s treatment of X and sought applicant’s response. Respondent claimed terminated subsequent meeting between parties (“meeting”) because applicant became heated but applicant claimed had ended conversation because respondent became agitated and personal. Respondent wrote to applicant, repeated concerns, stated situation no longer tenable and concluded had been irrevocable breakdown in trust and confidence. Respondent invited applicant to meeting to address concerns and stated current view that employment relationship needed to end. Following meeting applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed dismissal predetermined, and respondent biased and overwhelmed applicant with e-mails. Applicant claimed respondent should have persevered with support and guidance plan rather than commence disciplinary process. Applicant claimed respondent’s concerns unclear and did not know how to respond at disciplinary meeting.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent’s conclusions about applicant’s weaknesses as manager reasonable and similar to conclusions reached by Board and P. Respondent’s attitude towards applicant motivated by evidence rather than bias. Hardly fair for applicant to complain about volume of e-mails sent by respondent when applicant sent respondent similar volume of e-mails. While preferable for respondent to have had more face-to-face contact with applicant, respondent acutely aware of financial constraints limiting time respondent spent at School. Respondent remained unsatisfied about applicant’s responses regarding provision of NCEA information and staff survey results and required to be explicit about concerns. Fair and reasonable employer entitled to conclude support and guidance plan should be ended and replaced with disciplinary process in context of respondent’s conclusion applicant at fault in dealings with X and extraordinary difference between parties about events at meeting. Reasons for dismissal clear and applicant had opportunity at disciplinary meeting to respond to all allegations clearly before applicant. Applicant conveyed message to respondent applicant not at fault and respondent investigated misconduct allegations thoroughly. While respondent conceded to Authority would have accepted applicant made mistake about staff survey data, applicant did not provide any explanation for error during disciplinary process and respondent entitled to conclude impossible to rely on information provided to Board by applicant. NCEA information eventually provided to Board accurate but respondent entitled to conclude applicant’s statement to Board that School’s NCEA results “best ever” serious misconduct given applicant thought appropriate to make claims about School’s performance not actually verifiable and claimed no one would check veracity of claims. Respondent entitled to conclude applicant’s behaviour during meeting and subsequent denial of misbehaviour serious misconduct. Respondent entitled to conclude applicant did not act as good employer towards X and guilty of serious misconduct. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Education Act 1989;Education Act 1989 s78M;ERA s4;ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 30 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_327.pdf [pdf 263 KB] |