| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 102/06 |
| Hearing date | 25 May 2006 |
| Determination date | 12 July 2006 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | I Thompson ; R Gibson |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Cameron and Anor v New Zealand Police |
| Other Parties | Kyne |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – At time of alleged grievance applicants were police officers working in Beat Section – Beat Section confiscated liquor from persons who breached inner city liquor ban – Police received allegation that confiscated liquor was being dealt with inappropriately and began criminal investigation – Applicants alleged that in pursuing criminal investigation respondent ignored or minimised its employment obligations, and that they were disadvantaged by rotation policy implemented by respondent – Respondent claimed grievance not raised within 90 days – Police Association representative had made detailed written complaint about investigation and “reserved” personal grievance rights on behalf of Beat Section – Authority accepted there was force in submission that reserving personal grievance rights without more would not go far enough and may be comparable to situations where employee says they are contemplating raising grievance – However, grievance about investigation had been raised as rights were reserved after extensive analysis in detailed piece of correspondence – Subsequent letter from applicants raised remaining elements of grievance – All elements of grievance properly raised - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Nature of respondent’s inquiry was determinative – Respondent conducted criminal inquiry and was under no obligation to fulfil normal obligations to employees as a good employer would be expected to in normal course of events – Applicants alleged disadvantaged by behaviour of Acting Inspector (AI) during meeting – Meeting was not disciplinary in nature – Applicants may have felt threatened by AI’s manner but Authority not persuaded that constituted disadvantage – Applicants became aware of “retrospective rotation policy” that meant Beat Section staff could not work in that area for more than two years - Core of complaint was that policy was retrospective and was linked to respondent’s failure to find evidence against Beat Section for alleged misuse of confiscated alcohol – Authority satisfied policy not in response to investigation - Policy was retrospective but respondent may not have intended this – Evidence suggested policy was draft document only and was never implemented - Respondent promulgated draft rotation policy in circumstances where competent employees would develop reasonable apprehension that continued employment in present work environment was in jeopardy and required them to act promptly to obtain alternative position which was at least partially suitable to their requirements - Evidence suggested new jobs not as enjoyable – Unjustified disadvantage - Police Officers |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,500)(each) ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | NZ Woollen Workers IUOW v Distinctive Knitwear NZ Ltd [1990] 2 NZILR 438 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 102_06.pdf [pdf 51 KB] |