| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 258/07 |
| Hearing date | 3 May 2007 - 11 May 2007 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 24 August 2007 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | J Profitt (in person) ; T McKone |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Proffitt v Chief Executive, Department of Labour |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed given substantively and procedurally unfair warning for misconduct – Applicant emailed draft “Accident Alert” to Energy Authority (“EECA”) - Alert not cleared for release - Authority satisfied, overall, investigation process fair, and all relevant matters considered – Whether substantive justification for warning - No external complaint required for disciplinary process – Manager’s concerns warranted further investigation – Applicant well aware of consultation process for alerts – Clearly, in general course of work, applicant authorised to advise on safe work practices – However, not unfettered discretion to say whatever saw fit to whomever saw fit – Proper question was whether particular email exceeded applicant’s authority - Applicant knew not authorised, in terms of consultation process, to give “whole of Department” view – Nonetheless, presented personal view to EECA as though was respondent's– Authority concluded applicant exceeded authority in present case, and knew or should have known was doing so – Also, information in draft Alert not consistent with respondent's view and applicant knew or should have known that – Authority satisfied applicant fully aware of what was doing - Warning justified – No unjustified disadvantage – Parties disagreed about scope of Inspector role – Respondent asked for recommendations as to how parties could “move forward” in employment relationship – Authority considered relevant provisions of Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 – Inspectors functions and powers subject to directions and conditions imposed by Chief Executive – As delegated, directions and conditions included Departmental policies and procedures – Only extreme cases justified departure from such constraints - Inspectors obliged to work within limits of authority as set by Departmental procedure – Actions points in letter of warning therefore reasonable – Health and Safety Inspector |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | HSE s29;HSE s29(1);HSE s29(2);HSE s30;HSE s30(a);HSE s30(b);HSE s30(c) |
| Number of Pages | 20 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |