| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 119A/05 |
| Hearing date | 31 Aug 2005 - 1 Sep 2005 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 13 December 2005 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | P Appleton, P White ; R Ord |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Turner and Ors v Health Waikato, Waikato District Health Board and Ors |
| Other Parties | Health Waikato, Waikato District Health Board, Turner, Public Service Association |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal - By date application for removal was lodged, Authority had investigated employment relationship problem - Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA") s178(1) precluded removal - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant advised respondent no longer prepared to continue to employ her in existing role due to belief that continued employment presented an unacceptable risk - Redeployment process – Respondent emailed union ("PSA") organiser agreement which set out terms of trial supernumerary position for applicant – PSA organiser did not send copy to applicant – Decision made to withdraw offer – Applicant and PSA not advised of withdrawal – Applicant given notice of termination of employment – No contractual obligation on respondent to explore redeployment options since no redundancy – Concerns in relation to redeployment process – Applicant not consulted over length of time redeployment would be explored – Applicant unfairly denied opportunity to accept supernumerary position and extend employment by one week (supernumerary position would have run for one week longer than the pay applicant received until dismissal) - Dismissal unjustified - GOOD FAITH – Alleged PSA failed to maintain obligations of good faith owed in period leading up to dismissal - Alleged breaches resulted in dismissal - ERA Amendments providing for penalties did not apply retrospectively – That Parliament took steps to amend ERA to introduce express penalties for certain breaches of good faith indicated no remedy existed for breaches prior to amendment – Whilst PSA organiser’s communications with applicant were poor, evidence did not show causative link between information not communicated to applicant and applicant’s dismissal – Decision to dismiss was respondent's – No evidence applicant’s views on critical issues were sought by respondent from PSA organiser – Biomedical engineer" |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (One week) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Application dismissed (Good faith) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s4A;ERA s4(1);ERA s4(2)(c);ERA s114(4);ERA s178;ERA s178(1) |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |