Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No CA 18/04
Hearing date 20 Nov 2003
Determination date 19 February 2004
Member H Doyle
Representation A McKenzie ; P Shaw
Location Christchurch
Parties Watt v Canterbury District Health Board
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Alleged discrimination on basis of gender - Alleged breach of implied term of fair and reasonable treatment and express term of collective agreement - Applicant acting unit manager for period of time - Restructuring resulted in new clinical co-ordinator roles - Applicant applied unsuccessfully to new position - Alleged not involved in development of job description for new role - Consulted about draft - Unclear as to how could have been disadvantaged - Not disadvantaged by being referred to service manager to talk about new role - Another employee appointed to new position without advertising position - Applicant's substantive position not that of clinical co-ordinator - No legitimate expectation would be offered new role without appointment process - Allegations of gender bias in favour of females - Alleged was told he was heavy handed - No gender discrimination - Appointment and interview process fair and no bias of panel members proven - No unjustified disadvantage - No breach of implied term of fair and reasonable treatment or breach of collective agreement to act as good employer - Ongoing employment relationship - Parties encouraged to talk through issues - Clinical nurse specialist
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Statutes ERA s104(1)(a)
Cases Cited Battin v Western Bay Health Ltd [1998] 1 ERNZ 462;NZALPA v Air NZ Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 73;Victoria University of Wellington v Haddon [1996] 1 ERNZ 139
Number of Pages 12
PDF File Link: PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy.