| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 252 |
| Hearing date | 16 Oct 2013 - 17 Oct 2013, 27 Nov 2013 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 10 December 2013 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | P Yarrall ; L Willson |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Hunt v New Zealand Post Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's actions Issues raised about applicant’s overtime – Applicant criticised for excessive talking – Performance improvement plan (‘PIP’) introduced to reduce overtime levels – Applicant informed disciplinary action could follow if dockets not signed – Applicant accused of wearing old uniform – Applicant lent fleece to other staff member - Applicant required to remove non-compliant fleece – Applicant declined alternative uniform options – Applicant issued written warning – Whether applicant treated differently to other posties - Applicant given oral warning under PIP for not meeting performance expectations – Applicant reprimanded for undermining team leader – Applicant wrote letter complaining of bullying from team leader with attached letter from GP concerned harassment affecting applicant’s health – Team leader kept 82 pages of notes on applicant - Investigation found bullying allegations not substantiated – Second PIP initiated – Applicant given written warning under PIP – Applicant purchased health supplement between processing and commencing round – Applicant received final written warning for unauthorised absence - Postie |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Respondent justified in instigating PIP. Nothing in Collective Agreement requiring posties to sign dockets. Threat of disciplinary action not fair and reasonable. Keeping notes about applicant not disadvantage. Team leader’s management of applicant fair and reasonable. Applicant’s responsibility to wear correct uniform. Warning for wearing wrong uniform fair and reasonable. Other posties were spoken to about incorrect uniform. Respondent’s failure to advise applicant why other posties not disciplined created feeling of unfair treatment. Bullying investigation failed to address alleged disparity of treatment. Conclusion of investigation fair and reasonable. Respondent did not inform applicant issue of unauthorised absence would not be taken further. Open to respondent to issue final written warning. Applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by issuing of written warnings, investigation into bullying allegations or PIP. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s threat of disciplinary action for not signing dockets, failure to inform applicant why other posties not disciplined for uniform breaches, and failure to investigate claim of disparity of treatment. REMEDIES: $4,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application partially granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(b) - s103A – ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards and Hostesses of NZ IUOW v Air NZ Ltd (1985) ERNZ Sel Cas 156 |
| Number of Pages | 23 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_252.pdf [pdf 297 KB] |