| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 344 |
| Hearing date | 8 Jul 2014, 21-23 Jul 2014 (4 days) |
| Determination date | 25 August 2014 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | A Russell ; S Turner, S Clark |
| Parties | Walters-Gleeson v Whangarei District Council |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Political neutrality - Local government employee - Electoral rights - Applicant signed nomination form for mayoral candidate - Whether respondent applied unjustified double standard in dismissing applicant - Whether respondent's protocol contradictory - Whether failure to read protocol serious misconduct - Disparity in treatment - Whether respondent failed to consider applicant's explanation - Good faith - Applicant sought reinstatement - Personal assistant |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority ordered non-publication of names of persons referred to in letter written by applicant. Protocol provided employees could not align themselves with candidates in any way but also provided involvement in campaigns possible with approval of CEO. Protocol inherently contradictory and irrational. Shortcomings in how applicant was expected to become aware of protocol. Respondent approved employee involvement in campaign of different candidate. Respondent's conduct could be viewed as biased as supporting one mayoral candidate over another. Not fair and reasonable to impose higher standard of neutrality on PA than CEO. Respondent failed to consider applicant's explanation that applicant made genuine mistake. Respondent mislead applicant about how respondent became aware of nomination and breached duty of good faith. Respondent misleading in asking questions respondent already knew answer to. Both parties failed to be communicative and missed opportunity to reduce potential risk. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: Reinstatement not practicable or reasonable. Reimbursement of lost wages and future earnings appropriate. Respondent to pay applicant $31,684 reimbursement of lost wages. 25 per cent contributory conduct. $6,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted; Reimbursement of lost wages ($31,684.28); Contributory conduct ($25%); Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1);ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3)(d);ERA s103A(5);ERA s124;ERA s125(2);ERA s174;ERA Second schedule cl10(1);Local Electoral Act 2001;Local Electoral Act 2001 s4(1)(b)(ii);Local Electoral Act 2001 s4(2);Local Electoral Act 2001 s26;Local Government Act 2000 |
| Cases Cited | Angel v Fonterra Co-operative Group [2006] ERNZ 1080;H v A Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 92;Lewis v Howick College Board of Trustees [2010] NZCA 320;Lowe v Tararua District Council [1994] 1 ERNZ 887;Makatoa v Restaurant Brands (NZ) Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 311;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808;Telecom New Zealand Ltd v Nutter [2004] 1 ERNZ 315;Walters-Gleeson v Whangarei District Council [2014] NZERA Auckland 139 |
| Number of Pages | 27 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_344.pdf [pdf 351 KB] |