| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 44/08 |
| Hearing date | 1 Apr 2008 |
| Determination date | 18 April 2008 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | A Millar ; H Kynaston |
| Location | Palmerston North |
| Parties | Machon v Vice Chancellor of Massey University |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Respondent argued applicant failed to raise grievance in time – Respondent raised concerns at applicant’s performance review – Applicant submitted resignation but no reasons provided – Applicant declined invitation to discuss reasons for resignation – During three month notice period applicant wrote to respondent claiming grievance but no details provided – Respondent stated would await details of grievance before responding – Respondent wrote to applicant claiming grievance not raised in time – Respondent offered applicant reinstatement without prejudice to 90 day issue – Applicant argued communications between parties proper notice of grievance within 90 day period – Alternatively argued as respondent purposefully sought to resolve grievance consented to submission of grievance – Respondent argued applicant provided no details about grievances until outside 90 day period – Respondent argued invited applicant to discuss concerns but applicant failed to particularise grievances until seven months after left employment – Authority found respondent did not consent to grievances being raised out of time – Authority expressed preliminary view at investigation meeting that grievance not raised within 90 days – Authority also expressed applicant made reasonable arrangements to raise grievance but unreasonable failures by agent – Authority expressed likelihood leave granted to raise grievance out of time – Authority to facilitate resolution of substantive problem but if unsuccessful matter to be investigated by another Authority member – Respondent no longer opposed application for leave to raise grievance out of time given evidence and Authority’s preliminary view – Found no authority to order apology – Authority satisfied exceptional circumstances to grant grievance out of time due to applicant’s agent’s unreasonable failures – COSTS – Respondent sought contribution to costs for preparing and attending investigation meeting – Found costs directly from agent not available – Found respondent subjected unnecessarily to extensive preparation when issue could have been resolved at earlier date – Found respondent entitled to $6000 as reasonable contribution to costs |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs in favour of respondent ($6,000) |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s103(a);ERA s103(b);ERA s114;ERA s114(1);ERA s114(3);ERA s114(4);ERA s114(5);ERA s115(b);ERA s4 |
| Cases Cited | Jacobsen Creative Surfaces Ltd v Findlater [1994] 1 ERNZ 35;Phillips v Net Tel Communications [2002] 2 ERNZ 340;Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] 1 ERNZ 517;Hawkins v Commissioner of Police, unreported, WRC 38/05, Shaw J, 30 November 2007;Commissioner of Police v Creedy [2006] 1 ERNZ 886 (CA);PBO Ltd(formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 44_08.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |