| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 373 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jun 2014 - 31 Jun 2014 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 09 September 2014 |
| Member | R Larmer |
| Representation | W Reid ; C Eggleston |
| Location | Tauranga |
| Parties | Blylevens v Kidicorp Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Applicant liked" comments posted by applicant's advocate ("R") on Facebook - Whether R's Facebook comments highly critical and derogatory of respondent - Applicant commented on one post - Out of work conduct - Centre manager" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: R's Facebook posts derogatory of respondent. Visitors to R's Facebook page could see that applicant was current employee of respondent. Applicant's Facebook friends included ten staff of respondent and three parents of children at centre managed by applicant. Applicant exposed R's original posts to potentially unlimited audience. Open to fair and reasonable employer to conclude applicant breached respondent's Media Relations and Social Networking Policy. Open to respondent to conclude applicant liking" R's posts reasonably likely to communicate to users of social media that applicant agreed with, endorsed or supported posts. Open to respondent to conclude that publication of derogatory comments about respondent to potentially unlimited audience fundamental breach of applicant's duty of fidelity. Open to respondent to conclude applicant breached employment agreement. Open to respondent to conclude applicant's explanations unsatisfactory and that comment under R's first post intended to be public endorsement of R's views. Sufficient causal connection between applicant's conduct outside work hours and applicant's employment to allow conclusion of serious misconduct. Applicant's deliberate actions impacted or potentially impacted respondent. Reasonable grounds for finding of serious misconduct. Open to respondent to conclude applicant undermined ability to operate effectively or credibly as leader or fulfil essential core functions of role. Respondent right to be concerned applicant accepted no responsibility for actions. Dismissal justified." |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A(2);ERA s103A(3) |
| Cases Cited | Hook v Stream Group (NZ) Pty Ltd [2013] ERNZ 357;Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483;Senior v Police [2013] NZFLR 356 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_373.pdf [pdf 263 KB] |