| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 155 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jul 2013 |
| Determination date | 06 August 2013 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | T McGinn ; T Cleary |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Reynolds v Mount Cook Airline Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by disciplinary process and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant arranged travel tickets for casual crew member and husband – Husband not engaged by respondent but applicant recorded husband as contractor – Applicant engaged senior manager as representative at disciplinary meeting – Applicant required to find alternative representative – Applicant accepted booking outside usual practice – Whether allegation investigated sufficiently – PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for respondent’s breaches of good faith – Operations controller |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority ordered non-publication of identity of casual crew member and husband. Applicant did not state belief had legitimate discretion to work outside rules. Applicant’s admission obviated need for further investigation into bookings. Respondent clearly signalled allegations could amount to serious misconduct. No indication respondent’s policies unclear. Appropriate for respondent to commence disciplinary process. Applicant not prejudiced by having to find alternative representative. Respondent not required to interview all relevant staff. Applicant given opportunity to comment on provisional findings. Respondent failed to advise applicant of contents of conversations with former operations manager and line managers. Failure to disclose conversations not prejudicial to applicant. No unjustified disadvantage. Dismissal justified.;PENALTY: Any breach of good faith not deliberate, serious and sustained. No intention to undermine parties’ employment relationship. No penalty. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1);ERA s4(1A);ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s4A;ERA s103A;ERA s103A(2);ERA s103A(3);Privacy Act 1993 |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (No 2) [2011] ERNZ 466;Murphy and Routhan t/a Enzo’s Pizza v Van Beek [1998] 2 ERNZ 607;Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 |
| Number of Pages | 22 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_155.pdf [pdf 316 KB] |