| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 15/07 |
| Hearing date | 1 Aug 2006 - 3 Aug 2006 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 22 January 2007 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | P Bartlett ; A Russell |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Maher v Counties Manukau District Health Board |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Poor performance - Restrictions placed on applicant's medical practice by Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ"), including requirement for supervision - Respondent claimed restrictions meant applicant could not perform all required duties - Supervisors' concerned about applicant's skills - Allegations raised relating to prescription of medication - Investigation on all issues convened pursuant to employment agreement - Supervisors' reports provided to MCNZ and considered by respondent when deciding penalty - Applicant able to comment on reports before respondent reached conclusion - Appropriate to take supervisors' concerns into consideration - Reasonable to conclude concerns well founded and formed part of relevant circumstances at time of inquiry and dismissal - High level of trust resided in employee in applicant's position - In circumstances, failure to give acceptable explanation to prescription allegation would erode trust to serious degree - Dismissal justified - Medical officer special scale" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson (2006) 3 NZELR 155;Angel & Anor v Fonterra Co-operative Group unreported, Shaw J, 13 December 2006, CC 13/06;Reti v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd unreported, YS Oldfield, 12 December 2005, AA 479/05 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 15_07.pdf [pdf 97 KB] |