| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 245 |
| Hearing date | 25 - 26 Jul 2013 |
| Determination date | 29 November 2013 |
| Member | C Hickey |
| Representation | J Wilson ; R Brazil |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Aiken v The Otago Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension and by actions of applicant's manager (S") - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Applicant made multiple claims of poor treatment by S including yelling - Applicant caused cat to become distressed while carrying out assessment on dog - Applicants behaviour recorded on camera - Respondent claimed cat "seriously traumatised" - Alleged possible breach of Animal Welfare Act 1999 - Applicant suspended - Applicant could not attend meeting as unwell - Respondent insisted applicant use sick leave and threatened dismissal due to abandonment - Disparate treatment - Applicant sought reinstatement - Animal attendant" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Actions of S prior to suspension not unreasonable. Applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by actions of S. Applicant not consulted on proposed suspension. Suspension before applicant aware of allegations made. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension. No investigation beyond looking at video footage. Investigation not sufficient to conclude cat seriously traumatised". Many concerns never put to applicant. Respondent did not genuinely consider applicant's explanation. Some disparate treatment in how allegations of misconduct dealt with. Applicant treated unfairly. Allegation behaviour could breach Animal Welfare Act 1999 overstated. Dismissal unjustified. Parties not in a position to re-establish relationship. No reinstatement. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. No reimbursement of lost wages as applicant went on sickness benefit following dismissal. Insufficient evidence to support respondent caused applicant's health to deteriorate. $12,000 compensation appropriate." |
| Result | Application partially granted (unjustified disadvantage); Application granted (unjustified dismissal); Compensation ($12,000); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A - ERA s103A(3) - ERA s103A(4) - ERA s103A(5) - ERA s103(1)(b) - ERA s128(2) - Animal Welfare Act 1999 - Animal Welfare Act 1999 s10 - Animal Welfare Act 1999 s12 - |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (No 2) [2011] ERNZ 466;Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan (No 2) [2005] ERNZ 767;Lewis v Howick College Board of Trustees [2010] NZCA 320;NCR (NZ) Corporation Ltd v Blowes [2005] 1 ERNZ 932;New Zealand Educational Institute v Board of Trustees of Auckland Normal Intermediate School [1994] 2 ERNZ 414;Sefo v Sealord Shellfish Ltd [2008] ERNZ 178;Tawhiwhirangi v Attorney-General in respect of Chief Executive, Department of Justice [1993] 2 ERNZ 546 |
| Number of Pages | 36 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_245.pdf [pdf 373 KB] |