| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Christchurch 77 |
| Hearing date | 16 Feb 2015-19 Feb 2015 (4 days) |
| Determination date | 10 June 2015 |
| Member | Christine Hickey |
| Representation | W Forster ; B Dorking, F McMillan |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Turner v Vice-Chancellor of the University of Otago |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s unilateral increase in workload and alleged threats to unilaterally reduce applicant’s full time equivalent (“FTE”) – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Failure to follow lawful and reasonable instructions - DISCRIMINATION - Whether respondent discriminated against applicant for applicant’s involvement in union - Professional Practice Teaching Fellow |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Respondent did not unilaterally add to applicant’s workload. Respondent acted fairly and reasonably in asking applicant not to reduce workload. Respondent did not threaten applicant with reduction in FTE. In any case, respondent entitled to reduce applicant’s FTE as applicant had unilaterally reduced teaching hours, although respondent did not do so. No unjustified disadvantage.UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent did withhold some relevant information from applicant, which breached good faith obligations. Applicant did not see all relevant information on which respondent based decision. Respondent entitled to take disciplinary action against applicant after applicant ignored reasonable instructions. Applicant’s view of entitlement to ignore instructions not reasonable. Fair and reasonable employer could have continued to take disciplinary action. Fair and reasonable employer could have concluded applicant’s refusal to follow reasonable instructions and general behaviour during disciplinary process to be serious misconduct that harmed trust and confidence. Respondent did not give applicant opportunity to be heard and have explanation considered. Respondent may have pre-determined outcome. Respondent did not follow its own disciplinary process as Vice-Chancellor, who had final veto over decision, not given all relevant information, which constituted breach of good faith. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: 50 per cent contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $3,717 reimbursement of lost wages. $5,000 compensation appropriate.DISCRIMINATION: Applicant not discriminated against due to involvement in union, as applicant treated as any other employee. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified dismissal) ; Contributory conduct (50%) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($3,717) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Application dismissed (unjustified disadvantage)(discrimination) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s103(1)(c);ERA s103A;ERA s104(1);ERA s104(2) ;;ERA s107(e);ERA s119;ERA s124;Privacy Act 1993 |
| Cases Cited | Chief Executive of Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan (No 2) [2005] ERNZ 767 (CA);Chief Executive of Inland Revenue Department v Parkes (No 2) [2003] 1 ERNZ 540 (EmpC);Ioane v Waitakere City Council [2003] 1 ERNZ 104 (EmpC);Irvines Freightlines Ltd v Cross [1993] 1 ERNZ 424 (EmpC);Sky Network Television v Duncan [1998] 3 ERNZ 917 (CA;Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley [2011] NZEmpC 37, [2011] ERNZ 138 |
| Number of Pages | 50 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Christchurch_77.pdf [pdf 450 KB] |