| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Christchurch 7 |
| Hearing date | 27-Oct-16 |
| Determination date | 10 January 2017 |
| Member | P van Keulen |
| Representation | Both parties represented by Counsel (but Counsel not named) |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | A v R |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Applicant sought interim and permanent orders for non-publication of identifying details of parties - RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Whether grievances raised within 90 days - Whether unjustified dismissal grievance raised after termination - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Constructive Dismissal - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Applicant granted name suppression in separate criminal proceedings in District Court. Actions pertaining to criminal conviction form part of current factual matrix investigated by Authority. Application for non-publication order granted.;RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE: Unjustified disadvantage grievance for respondent’s alleged failure to allow applicant to return to work not raised within 90 days. Termination took effect from when applicant gave notice of resignation not when notice period expired. Unjustified dismissal grievance raised on day of termination and within 90 days.;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Final written warning made applicant’s job less secure regardless of whether applicant was attending work. Respondent carried out fair process. Failure to question one of three interviewers did not cause investigation to become unjust. Respondent provided relevant information to applicant and considered respondent’s response before issuing warning. No unjustified disadvantage. Respondent’s conduct in dealing with applicant during absence over potential return to work did not amount to breach of duty. Time taken to progress matters reflection on both parties. Issues respondent had with applicant’s return to work raised with applicant and applicant given opportunity to respond. When applicant resigned respondent was still exploring unresolved issues. No dismissal. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A - ERA s114 - ERA s174E - ERA Second Schedule cl10 |
| Cases Cited | A Ltd v H [2016] NZCA 419;Air Nelson Ltd v Neill [2008] ERNZ 483 (EmpC);Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers Industrial Union Of Workers (Inc) [1994] 2 NZLR 415 (CA);Auckland Shop Employees IOUW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 372 (CA);Auckland Shop Employees IOUW v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 372 (CA);Gibson v GFW Agri-Products Ltd [1994] 2 ERNZ 309 (EmpC);Poverty Bay Electric Power Board v Atkinson [1992] 3 ERNZ 413 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 24 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Christchurch_7.pdf [pdf 296 KB] |