| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Christchurch 151 |
| Hearing date | 15 May 2014;26-30 May 2014 |
| Determination date | 25 September 2014 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | F McMillan ; S Wilson |
| Location | Dunedin;Invercargill |
| Parties | Campbell v The Commissioner of Salford School |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by investigation of particular complaint against applicant, suspension, and process used to conduct investigation leading to applicant's dismissal - Whether applicant's authority undermined - Limited statutory manager (LSM") - Commissioner - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Whether applicant responsible for creation and maintenance of unhealthy and unsafe working environment causing significant harm to former and current employees - Principal" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Particular complaint made against applicant not historic and investigated when made. No evidence decision to uphold complaint against applicant predetermined. No disadvantage as no action taken against applicant. LSM obliged to investigate complaint and no disadvantage arising from restructure at school. Applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by investigation of particular complaint. LSM wanted applicant out of workplace. Had not been necessary to remove applicant to protect others when problems arose previously. LSM should have allowed applicant proper opportunity to respond to suspension proposal. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension. Information withheld by respondent evaluative and played no material part in decision to dismiss. Matter deserved careful consideration and no validity in applicant's complaint investigation not concluded in reasonable time. No specific evidence respondent adopted approach aimed at making process expensive and stressful for applicant. Applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by process used to conduct investigation leading to dismissal. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $5,000 compensation appropriate.;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Reading of various reports clearly supported respondent's cause for concern. Applicant advised of concerns and given opportunity to respond. Applicant's responses considered genuinely. No evidence respondent only interviewed people likely to support applicant's dismissal, ignored or rejected contrary evidence, ignored responses or required applicant to respond anew every time. Respondent considered improvement in applicant's behaviour. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Education Act 1989;Education Act 1989 s78N;Education Act 1989 s78O;ERA s103A;ERA s124;Privacy Act 1993 |
| Cases Cited | Campbell v The Commissioner of Salford School [2013] NZERA Christchurch 254 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Christchurch_151.pdf [pdf 192 KB] |