| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 12/08 |
| Hearing date | 7 Aug 2007 |
| Determination date | 14 February 2008 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | G Pollock (in person) ; P Robertson |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Pollock v MacDonald (Statutory Manager, Aranui High School) |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed respondent failed to consider application for medical retirement – Respondent claimed applicant never formally applied for retirement, alternatively, argued did not meet requirements of Collective Employment Agreement (“CEA”) – Applicant claimed parties agreed to full and final settlement, however, applicant able to bring claim regarding rejection of application for retirement – Authority found evidence supported conclusion that was application for retirement under CEA – Authority satisfied applicant applied for retirement notwithstanding made part of settlement proposal – Respondent not satisfied with medical certificate provided with application – Authority found time restraint not justifiable reason for failing to obtain second certificate or communicate concerns to applicant – Applicant advised retirement would not be funded by Ministry of Education – Found retirement rejected by Ministry official who concluded application irregular on basis of unsubstantiated information provided by respondent – Source of funding irrelevant consideration by respondent but significant factor in applicant’s decision making – Authority found respondent breached CEA by rejecting application without considering whether accorded with CEA – Unjustified disadvantage – REMEDIES – Medical opinion supported conclusion applicant lost real chance of retirement – Authority assessed applicant’s chance of retirement and receiving benefit at 50 percent – Retirement benefit under CEA different to compensatory payment under Employment Relations Act 2000 – Applicant entitled to 50 percent of retirement benefit, less two months notice received under terms of settlement – $5000 compensation for humiliation appropriate – PENALTY – Applicant claimed respondent breached confidentiality provisions of settlement agreement by commenting on payment of notice period – Authority not prepared to award penalty in circumstances where reporter saw respondent after applicant disclosed resignation – Further compliance order unnecessary where part of settlement disclosed in determination details and prohibition of publication attached to other parts – Principal |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation ($5,000) ; Compensation (loss of chance)($51,668.50) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s123(1)(c)(i) |
| Cases Cited | Fletcher Challenge Energy Ltd v Electricity Corporation of New Zealand [2002] 2 NZLR 433;Just Hotel Limited v Jesudhass [2007] NZCA 582;Waugh v Commissioner of Police [2004] 1 ERNZ 450 |
| Number of Pages | 23 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 12_08.pdf [pdf 79 KB] |