| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 153/08 |
| Hearing date | 29 Nov 2007 - 30 Nov 2007 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 24 April 2008 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | P Cranney ; J Rooney |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Panoho v The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Auckland |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Workplace issues arose out of incident involving applicant and another staff member - Applicant became increasingly unwell - Took period of sick leave - During that period University undertook restructuring process - Applicant advised not required to participate in process if likely to adversely impact on health - Applicant's department selected for redundancies - Staff to submit documents to Selection Committee to assist selection decisions - Applicant raised concerns about having to provide information while on sick leave and it was arranged that department would provide required information - While restructuring process underway applicant attempted to arrange meeting to discuss plans for return to work - Meeting did not eventuate - Selection Committee recommended applicant's position be disestablished - Applicant not given opportunity to respond - Applicant's employment terminated by reason of redundancy - Authority did not accept position was redundant - Selection Committee breached duty of good faith and natural justice in reaching conclusions without having sought applicant’s response - Authority concluded likely applicant actually dismissed for poor performance - Applicant not treated fairly or sensitively - Respondent’s decision and actions not those of fair and reasonable employer - Dismissal unjustified - REMEDIES - Respondent argued reinstatement impracticable as no vacant position and no funding for creation of one - Respondent believed applicant felt could not return to work environment - Authority found applicant desired to return to work - Also respondent had been on notice applicant seeking reinstatement for some time - Applicant’s career likely to be ended if not reinstated as no other position available - Reinstatement intended to be primary remedy - Right to remedy outweighed inconvenience to respondent - Reinstatement ordered - Applicant suffered humiliation, loss of dignity and mana, and injury to feelings - Suffered significant financial hardship - Having regard to evidence, length of service and nature of personal grievance compensation of $25,000 appropriate - Lecturer |
| Result | Application granted ; Reinstatement ordered ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($25,000) ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s103A;ERA s124;ERA s125;ERA s126 |
| Number of Pages | 28 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 153_08.pdf [pdf 91 KB] |