| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 108/08 |
| Hearing date | 20 Feb 2008 - 21 Feb 2008 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 26 March 2008 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | R Parmenter ; S Wilson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Buchanan v Vice-Chancellor, University of Auckland |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Sent offensive email to international student who requested extension for assignment due to bereavement - Respondent concluded email so serious undermined trust and confidence in applicant - Applicant's employment governed by collective employment agreement that provided for termination without notice for serious misconduct - University policy set out guidelines for use of email system - At time email sent applicant recovering from surgery - Applicant raised health issues during inquiry but not to level of detail provided to Authority - During inquiry applicant said sent email because angry, after dismissal suggested sent it as judgement effected by health - Applicant provided no evidence that claim for dismissal politically motivated - Authority found fair and reasonable employer would not have dismissed applicant for reasons it did - Respondent took into account previous unrelated correspondence that it had not addressed at time - Unfair and unreasonable to do so - Unreasonable of respondent to escalate applicant’s conduct to serious misconduct - However applicant’s actions were misconduct - Suggestions applicant made during disciplinary process to help ensure similar situation did not occur again completely ignored or overlooked - Unjustifiably dismissed - REMEDIES - Applicant contributed significantly to grievance - Contributory conduct 25 percent - Applicant’s reinstatement opposed by respondent - Not practicable to reinstate applicant to role with little supervision when had failed to demonstrate fundamental awareness of how actions and conduct impacted on others - Very public, and extremely critical, remarks applicant made about respondent also taken into account - Authority assessed applicant’s lost remuneration at eight months, less contribution - Applicant provided insufficient evidence for other lost income claims - Applicant produced little evidence to support compensation claim - However, Authority accepted had suffered some distress - Taking into account tenure and damage to reputation compensation appropriate - Award of $20,000 would have been justified, taking contribution into account $15,000 awarded - Senior Lecturer |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($68,000 reduced to $51,000)(8 months) ; Compensation for hurt etc ($20,000 reduced to $15,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA Schedule 2 cl10 |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] 1 ERNZ 415;Toll New Zealand Consolidated Limited v Rowe [2007] ERNZ 840;X v Auckland District Health Board [2007] 1 ERNZ 66 |
| Number of Pages | 18 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 108_08.pdf [pdf 73 KB] |