| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 21/08 |
| Hearing date | 14 Feb 2008 |
| Determination date | 18 February 2008 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | B Buckett ; E Warden |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Morgan v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) - Applicant claimed unjustifiably suspended – Sought urgent removal to EC on ground that important question of law central to resolution – Respondent argued suspension justified and opposed removal to EC – Respondent issued letter to applicant setting out allegations – Allegations at time of investigation meeting related to misappropriation of gym funds and misuse of department vehicle – Applicant placed on special leave with pay while respondent considered whether suspension appropriate during respondent’s investigation – Applicant called to meeting following week where suspended on full pay while allegations investigated - Applicant claimed important question of law arose as to employer’s right to suspend where employment agreement did not provide for suspension – Authority accepted respondent’s submission legal position clear that express contractual provision not required in order to suspend employee on pay while conducting investigation – No important question of law to be answered – Application for removal declined – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Authority found express contractual provision not legally required to suspend applicant on pay while conducting investigation – Applicant aware respondent’s human resources policy allowed for suspension – Found respondent complied with policy – Fair process followed at suspension meeting and afterwards – Respondent properly regularly reviewed decision to suspend – Seriousness of allegations and applicant’s managerial position meant applicant’s presence may have hampered respondent’s investigation – Continuing suspension reasonable considering necessary protection of applicant, other staff, inmates and visiting members of public to prison – Found employers entitled to inquire into conduct of employee clubs – Respondent’s six month investigation lengthy but not unjustified – No evidence to support applicant’s claim of disparity of treatment or that respondent pursuing agenda against applicant – Suspension was and remained justified - Prison unit manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s178 |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards and Hostesses of NZ IUOW v Air NZ Limited [1990] 3 NZLR 549;B & D Doors Ltd v Hamilton, unreported, CC 28/07, Couch J, 18 December 2007;Birss v Secretary for Justice [1984] 1 NZLR 513, 522;Goodall v L’Or�al New Zealand Limited [2002] 2 ERNZ 224;Graham v Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [2005] ERNZ 587;Jensen v Attorney-General in respect of the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2003] 2 ERNZ 36;Singh v Sherildee Holdings Ltd (t/a New World Opotiki), unreported, ARC 111/04, Couch J, 22 September 2005 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 21_08.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |