| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 347/04 |
| Hearing date | 16 Sep 2004 |
| Determination date | 28 October 2004 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; R Tretheway |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Steadman v Department of Corrections |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Suspension and final warning - Statutory right for respondent to search any vehicle brought into prison - Respondent introduced new policy to check employees' vehicles - Communications about policy before applicant went on extended leave - Email and circular confirming policy came out while applicant on leave - Applicant deleted emails without reading on return - Applicant alleged was not consulted about policy - Contingent upon applicant to find out what occurred while on leave - Applicant refused to allow respondent to check vehicle even after policy explained to him - Suspended - Subsequently placed on special leave on full pay to give opportunity to prepare submissions on why suspension should not occur - Suspension confirmed - By suspending before giving opportunity to prepare submissions, suspension occurred contrary to respondent's policy - Failure rectified when applicant invited to provide input - No personal grievance in relation to suspension - Final written warning issued for serious misconduct in refusing to comply with lawful order by not allowing search - Only consequence in policy manual for continued refusal to allow search was employment investigation - Refusal to obey lawful order example of serious misconduct in Code of Conduct - However applicant only requested rather than specifically instructed to undergo vehicle search - Finding of serious misconduct not open to respondent as fair and reasonable employer - Final warning was unjustified disadvantage - Remedies - Other employees heard about final warning - Authority would have awarded $10,000 compensation - Applicant on notice he was expected to comply with request to search - Contributory conduct 35 percent - COSTS - Costs incurred not unreasonable and both parties successful in limited way - Costs to lie where they fall - Prison employee |
| Result | Application granted (Final warning) ; Application dismissed (Suspension) ; Compensation for humiliation, etc ($10,000 reduced to $6,500) ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Statutes | New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990;Penal Institutions Act 1954 s21M |
| Cases Cited | Paykel Ltd v Ahlfeld [1993] 1 ERNZ 334;Wellington International Airport Ltd v Air NZ Ltd [1993] 1 NZLR 671;Wellington, Taranaki and Marlborough Clerical, Administrative and Related Workers IUOW v College Group Ltd [1984] ACJ 315 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 347_04.pdf [pdf 64 KB] |