| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 117/05 |
| Hearing date | 16 Dec 2004 - 17 Dec 2004 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 04 April 2005 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | D Bruce ; I Anderson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Wright v Te Tuinga Whanau Trust |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Oversight by applicant lost respondent funding Applicant declined suggestion to resign - Alleged discriminated against and isolated over following months - Stress leave - Respondent alleged failure to rectify performance issues upon return - Removed file from supervisor’s desk - Suspended without notice or pay while employer sorted out “what options were” - Nothing indicating serious misconduct or gross negligence as required to justify suspension under individual employment agreement - No notification of reasons for suspension or opportunity to comment - Procedure deeply flawed - Unjustified disadvantage on two grounds - Suspension and general management attitude and repudiatory behaviour following funding incident - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Dismissed following meeting at caf� to discuss allegations set out in letter to applicant - Predetermination and bias flowing from funding incident evident throughout respondent’s dealings with applicant despite earlier decision not to pursue matter - Decision makers took no part in disciplinary inquiry - Caf� inappropriate setting for disciplinary meeting - Failure to complete inquiry by ensuring applicant appreciated and exercised opportunity to provide explanations - Funding incident could not justify dismissal given previous decision to take no action - No systematic and appropriate assistance to improve alleged performance issues - Absence from work and stress leave not grounds for dismissal - Removal of case file and applicant’s “uncooperative” response to subsequent questioning not grounds for dismissal in circumstances - Dismissal substantively and procedurally unjustified - Remedies - No contributory conduct - Respondent suffered rarely seen burden of mistrust and suspicion in everyday employment - ARREARS OF WAGES - Wages for period of suspension and some holidays due and owing |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (To be calculated by parties)(5 months less earnings) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000) ; Arrears of wages (To be calculated by parties) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards and Hostesses (NZ) IUOW v Air New Zealand Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 584;Birss v Secretary of Justice [1984] 1 NZLR 513;Donaldson and Youngman v Dickson [1994] 1 ERNZ 920;Ioane v Waitakere City Council [2003] 1 ERNZ 104;NZ Educational Institute v Board of Trustees of Auckland Normal Intermediate [1992] 3 ERNZ 243;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 117_05.pdf [pdf 98 KB] |