| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 169/07 |
| Hearing date | 6 Dec 2007 |
| Determination date | 17 December 2007 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | I Hard, N Bourke ; R Tretheway |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Hough v The Commissioner of Police |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant challenged adverse report and delays associated with its production - Claimed disadvantaged his employment, particularly career advancement - Applicant disciplined over file management process - Advised being reported to District Commander (“DC”) under Police Regulations 1992 - Applicant advised DC did not consider initial investigation not fair or impartial - DC sought independent review of investigation - Review recommended reducing penalty to adverse report - Applicant unaware of review - DC concluded applicant failed to perform at satisfactory level and issued adverse report to remain on file for 4 years - Applicant had not complained of delays during process - Delays not deliberate and did not disadvantage applicant - Disciplinary process conducted on papers not ideal but accepted practice at respondent and applicant took no issue with that at time - However, fair and reasonable employer would have met with applicant and sought clarification on conflicting information - Action required due to seriousness of potential outcomes - However, overall process not unfair - Substantive conclusion relating to delays on file open to DC - Applicant also accepted could have done things differently - No evidence of casual link for humiliation etc - Applicant not disadvantaged - Police Sergeant |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Police Regulations 1992 r9(22);Police Regulations 1992 r12 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 169_07.pdf [pdf 43 KB] |