| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Christchurch 34 |
| Hearing date | 9, 10, 11 & 12 Feb 2016 (4 days) |
| Determination date | 29 March 2016 |
| Member | Helen Doyle |
| Representation | D Beck, D Mills-Godinet ; H Kynaston, N Ridder |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Davis v Commissioner of Police |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Incompatibility – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by processes adopted by respondent – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – PENALTY – GOOD FAITH – Applicant sought penalty for respondent’s breaches of good faith obligations – Constable |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Dismissal claim subsumed unjustified disadvantage claim. Respondent should have provided statements without redaction to applicant. Redaction impacted applicant’s ability to properly understand respondents’ concerns. Fair and reasonable employer could not conclude applicant had no trust and confidence without further investigation and psychological assessment. Respondent could not conclude in all circumstances that there was irreconcilable incompatibility to justify dismissal. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Knowledge of applicant’s tension with staff following Employment Court judgment now more wide spread. Reinstatement not practicable and reasonable. Respondent to pay applicant $12,418 reimbursement of lost wages. $1,633 compensation for loss of superannuation benefit appropriate. $10,000 compensation for humiliation etc appropriate.;PENALTY – GOOD FAITH: No penalty sought in amended pleadings specifically to particularise allegations about redacted interview notes. No breach of good faith to put work return plan on hold. Not inappropriate to put psychologist’s assessment on hold until meeting. No penalty. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($13,418.94) ; Compensation for loss of benefit ($1,633.52)(Superannuation) ; Compensation for humiliation ($10,000) ; Application dismissed (penalty – good faith) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s4A;ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3);ERA s123(1)(a);ERA s123(1)(b);ERA s123(1)(c)(ii);ERA s124;ERA s125(2);ERA s128 |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (No 2) [2011] NZEmpC 160, [2011] ERNZ 466;Davis v Commissioner of Police [2014] NZEmpC 152;De Bruin v Canterbury District Health Board [2012] NZEmpC 110, [2012] ERNZ 431;Mabry v West Auckland Living Skills Homes Trust Board (Inc) (2002) 6 NZELC 96,573 (EmpC);New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Reid [1998] 2 ERNZ 250 (EmpC);Northern Hotel etc IUOW v Rotorua Returned Services Association Inc (1989) ERNZ Sel Cas 535 (LC), [1989] 3 NZILR 497;Reid v New Zealand Fire Service Commission [1999] 1 ERNZ 104 (CA);Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 45, [2014] ERNZ 180 |
| Number of Pages | 30 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Christchurch_34.pdf [pdf 342 KB] |