Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2013] NZERA Auckland 494
Hearing date 16 Oct 2013
Determination date 01 November 2013
Member A Fitzgibbon
Representation A McInally ; D France
Location Auckland
Parties Tuioti v Air New Zealand Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by issuing of final written warning – Respondent consulted with employees about ways to cut costs – Applicant's colleague made redundant – Applicant suggested at management meetings that manager address turn around times and increase repeat business – Manager requested applicant put concerns in email - Applicant sent email to senior executives seeking manager’s resignation – Investigation concluded contents of email inappropriate – Applicant issued final written warning - Technician
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Applicant previously spoken to about email sent to staff raising car parking issues. Applicant failed to raise concerns with supervisor in appropriate manner. Proper approach was participation in consultation process. Reasonable to infer applicant attempting to discredit manager. Investigators not biased towards applicant. Applicant given opportunity to explain before view formed. Applicant aware of respondent’s expectations for how employees act in workplace. Respondent entitled to conclude applicant guilty of serious misconduct. Applicant displayed no insight into actions. Final written warning justified. Remedies would be reduced by 100 per cent if personal grievance successful. No unjustified disadvantage.
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A – ERA s103A(3)
Cases Cited Air New Zealand Ltd v V [2009] ERNZ 185;Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (No 2) [2011] ERNZ 466;De Bruin v Canterbury District Health Board [2012] NZEmpC 110
Number of Pages 16
PDF File Link: 2013_NZERA_Auckland_494.pdf [pdf 277 KB]