| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 192/06 |
| Determination date | 01 June 2006 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | J Forret ; C Inglis |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Corbett v The Chief Executive, Department of Corrections |
| Summary | RAISING OF PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Whether applicant raised grievance within 90 day time limit – Unjustified dismissal claim dismissed by Authority – Challenge filed - New application for unjustified disadvantage in relation to written warning filed on same day - Applicant notified grievance relating to disciplinary investigations one day before written warning issued – Whether notification covered actual warning or just disciplinary process – At time grievance raised warning inevitable as date for applicant to provide submissions on proposed penalty already passed – Employment Relations Act 2000 s114 contemplated event “that has occurred or is occurring” - Warning was “occurring” at time grievance raised and was event that had come to notice of employee even though not yet confirmed – Respondent’s reply to applicant’s raising of grievance impliedly accepted grievance included outcome of second investigation – Justification for warning and issues arising from investigation leading to warning inextricably linked - Commonsense for Authority to permit investigation into matter in entirety – Corrections officer |
| Result | Question determined in favour of applicant ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s114;ERA s114(1);ERA s122;ERA s178 |
| Cases Cited | Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] 1 ERNZ 517;Goodall v Marigny (NZ) Ltd [2000] 2 ERNZ 60;New Zealand Automobile Association Inc v McKay [1996] 2 ERNZ 622;Ruebe-Donaldson v Sky Television Ltd [2004] 2 ERNZ 83 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 192_06.pdf [pdf 60 KB] |