| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 150/05 |
| Hearing date | 13 Sep 2005 - 14 Sep 2005 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 23 November 2005 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | J Goldstein ; J Rooney |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Walker v Telecom New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | RAISING OF PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Determination focused on events that occurred within 90 days preceding applicant raising grievance - Dispute over whether applicant could validly raise a grievance by allegedly doing so a week prior to alleged unjustified action - Not legally possible to raise grievance about decision not to offer secondment a week before decision made - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant upset to return from leave to find out appointee for role applicant had unsuccessfully applied for had been placed at her desk - Shortage of space which was sorted out - Respondent's evidence preferred that applicant accepted apology - Alleged discrimination - Authority did not accept applicant's assertion that she was not offered same opportunities for training or promotion as others - Even if assertions were accurate was no evidence this was by reason of any prohibited grounds of discrimination - Alleged applicant hit a brick wall" every time she applied for position that involved particular manager "A" - No basis for challenging A's conclusion that applicant was not person best suited for position - A did not mislead or deceive applicant about negative feedback she received about applicant - Respondent's conduct at meeting to discuss situation perfectly reasonable - GOOD FAITH - Authority unaware of principle of fairness that would require manager to disqualify themselves from participation in one selection process because of participation in another - Cannot be requirement of fairness for manager to deny herself advantage of others' views simply because do not support an applicant - Alleged that lack of feedback inhibited applicant's ability to seek training and development that would better suit her for positions such as those she missed out on - Implied duty on an employer to provide training limited to training which ensured employee capable of fulfilling current position - Training and procedures specialist" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ECA s33;ECA s33(2);ERA s4;ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s104;ERA s105;ERA s107;ERA s114;ERA s114(1) |
| Cases Cited | Alliance Freezing Company (Southland) Ltd v NZ Amalgamated Engineering etc IUOW [1989] 3 NZILR 785;Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW v Mt Albert City Council [1989] 2 NZILR 651;Mason v Health Waikato Ltd [1998] 1 ERNZ 84;NZ Automobile Association v McKay [1996] 2 ERNZ 622 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 150_05.pdf [pdf 61 KB] |