| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 330/05 |
| Hearing date | 7 Jul 2005 - 9 Aug 2005 (7 days) |
| Determination date | 29 August 2005 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | K Mair ; E Hartdegen |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Daniels v Maori Television Service |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant employed by respondent as news presenter on programme Te Kaea - Applicant attended protest against Foreshore and Seabed Bill - Respondent forbade applicant from taking part in future protests and told her doing so would jeopardise her employment - Instruction not to protest unreasonable because it was bald and absolute and did not provide any guidance to applicant as to what constituted a protest" - Instruction constituted unjustified disadvantage - Instruction also amounted to unlawful discrimination on grounds of political opinion - Others employed by respondent on similar work who had participated in protests not subjected to that detriment - New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 ("NZBORA") applied only to acts of respondent carried out in course of performing public function imposed or conferred on it by statute law - Entry into employment relationships generally was a private function of respondent - However in relation to its complained of act towards applicant, respondent was acting in performance of its public function of television broadcasting - Applicant entitled to protection from acts of respondent carried out in breach of NZBORA - Instruction given too vague, wide and discriminatory to be a justifiable limitation under s5 NZBORA - Respondent made decision to change presenting format without consulting applicant - Respondent breached good faith requirement in s4(1A)(b) ERA by being inactive and uncommunicative in relation to change of presenter format - Failure to observe statutory duty was an unjustified disadvantage - General manager of news and current affairs made comments to another employee which related to applicant's whanau relationship and sexuality - Comments gave rise to personal grievance - Remarks deeply offensive to applicant and discriminatory of her and her partner, who was director of respondent - Reasonable for applicant to consider remarks homophobic - Respondent expressly undertook to operate and work according to values which formed kaupapa Maori - Values had not been observed and failure added to applicant's sense of grievance because she was committed to tikanga Maori - Remedies - Authority made recommendation that respondent's procedures, policies and rules be extended to cover bullying in workplace" |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($16,000) ; Recommendation ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Broadcasting Act 1989;ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s64;ERA s65;ERA s103;ERA s104;ERA s104(1)(b);Human Rights Act 1993 s21(1)(j);Maori Television Service Act 2003 s8;Maori Television Service Act 2003 s9;Maori Television Service Act 2003 s36;Maori Television Service Act 2003 s38;Maori Television Service Act 2003 s41;Maori Television Service Act 2003 Part 4;Maori Television Service Act 2003 Schedule 2 cl41;Maori Television Service Act 2003 Schedule 2 cl42;New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s3(b);New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s4;New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s5;New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s14;New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s16;New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s17;Privacy Act 1993 |
| Cases Cited | Good Health Wanganui v Burberry [2002] 1 ERNZ 668;Poole v Horticulture & Food Research Institute of NZ Ltd [2002] 2 ERNZ 869;Smith v Christchurch Press Company Ltd [2000] ERNZ 624 ; [2001] 1 NZLR 407 |
| Number of Pages | 23 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 330_05.pdf [pdf 150 KB] |