| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 572 |
| Hearing date | 10-11 Dec 2013 |
| Determination date | 13 December 2013 |
| Member | T G Tetitaha |
| Representation | J Dolan ; P Kiely |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Dolan v The Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant issued with verbal warning for failing to follow policies – Subsequent written warning relating to unprofessional conduct – Proposal to engage external provider to perform applicant’s role – Applicant informed redundancy possible – Applicant chose not to apply for new role – Applicant provided feedback on restructure – Whether applicant informed was unsuitable for new role – Applicant alleged conflicts of interest, breach of good faith and misuse of funding in breach of Ministry of Education guidelines – Restructuring process suspended – Applicant placed on paid special leave while allegations investigated – Whether respondent undertook to halt restructuring process – Investigation found allegations not substantiated – Applicant’s position made redundant – Applicant paid cash in lieu of vehicle use during notice period – Whether respondent aware of skill deficit in applicant’s office – Property manager |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant accepted need to amalgamate management of school and non-school properties under one structure. Respondent carefully considered applicant’s proposal and had all relevant information. Genuine commercial reason for restructure. Respondent had no knowledge of skills deficit. Affected staff consulted before final decision. No comment made about applicant’s unsuitability. No undertaking to halt restructuring process. Respondent entitled to continue restructuring following investigation. Applicant’s treatment following redundancy more properly disadvantage claim. No breach of duty of good faith. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Protected Disclosures Act 2000 s6 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Regional Council v Sanson [1999] 2 ERNZ 597;Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Wallis [1998] 3 ERNZ 984;Corbett v National Mutual Finance Ltd (1992) 5 PRNZ 386;G N Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington etc Caretakers etc IUOW (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843 ; [1991] 1 NZLR 151;Griffith v Sunbeam Corp Ltd unreported, Couch J, 28 July 2006, WC13/06;Hakaraia v Foodstuffs (Wellington) Co-operative Society Ltd [2001] ERNZ 105;Kelly v Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corp unreported, Palmer J, 24 March 1999, WC13/99;New Zealand Merchant Service Guild IUOW Inc v New Zealand Rail Ltd [1991] 2 ERNZ 587;Rittson-Thomas (t/as Totara Hills Farm) v Davidson (2013) 10 NZELR 391;RNZAF Museum Trust Board v Hunter unreported, Shaw J, 1 March 2000, WC11/00;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825;T v S A R Ltd unreported, H Doyle, 23 September 2005, CA126/05;Taiapa v Te Runanga o Turanganui A Kiwa t/a Turanga Ararau Private Training Establishment [2012] NZERA Auckland 252;Young v Venables t/a Mt Eden Bakery & Delicatessen unreported, Shaw J, 7 November 2000, AC88/00 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_572.pdf [pdf 202 KB] |