| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 132/08 |
| Hearing date | 10 Oct 2007 |
| Determination date | 07 April 2008 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | A Swan ; J Bunbury |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Gibson v Ngati Porou Hauora Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Respondent governed by board that owned and administered a hospital – Respondent received funding from District Health Board – Applicant granted sabbatical leave on pay but without “privileges” of employment agreement (“EA”) – Board chairperson (“T”) contacted applicant prior to sabbatical and argued applicant failed to carry out directions – Applicant claimed no misconduct and sought apology – Respondent discovered serious funding issue – Board concluded would investigate applicant’s responsibility for funding issue upon return from sabbatical – T invited applicant to hui to discuss issues – Applicant acknowledged hui to discuss services contract, employment of consultant, and budgets – Applicant informed by T would be provided full information at hui – Applicant given letter at hui stating board had lost confidence in applicant’s ability and considered serious misconduct had occurred – Following hui correspondence between applicant and T where applicant provided T comprehensive memorandum responding to issues – T contacted applicant few hours later and advised of dismissal – Authority satisfied respondent’s reasonable inquiries fully extended to applicant – Authority satisfied applicant’s conduct provided “just cause” within meaning of EA to terminate employment without notice – Authority satisfied “just cause” given by applicant amounted to “serious misconduct” under EA – Authority found applicant failed to respond to requests from respondent to negotiate and conclude contracts for future funding – Found reasonable for respondent to conclude applicant failed to keep board properly informed – Found neglect by applicant in duties caused substantial diminishment in funding available to respondent – Authority found reasonable for respondent to view applicant’s expenditure on property made without board approval – Found applicant also breached EA by increasing staff salaries and appointing new staff without board approval – Authority found applicant’s charging of sabbatical expenditure to respondent conduct which showed applicant did not understand limitations of central agency funds – Authority found applicant fully advised of allegation and given full opportunity to explain conduct before misconduct conclusion made – Found substantive and procedural justification for dismissal – COUNTERCLAIM – BREACH OF CONTRACT – Authority found applicant’s negligence caused respondent to lose opportunity of obtaining funding – However, Authority not satisfied loss or damage caused to respondent as non-profit organisation – Authority left counterclaim undetermined so respondent could decide whether to provide further evidence – Kai Arataki |
| Result | Application dismissed (Dismissal) ; Counterclaim dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] 3 NZELR 155 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 132_08.pdf [pdf 48 KB] |