| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 18A/08 |
| Hearing date | 23 Oct 2007 : 24 Oct 2007 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 17 July 2008 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | M McAller ; D Abraham |
| Location | Napier |
| Parties | Puna & Anor v Haulage Transport Ltd |
| Other Parties | Rakuraku |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DIMISSAL – First applicant (“P”) claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s alleged inducement to leave employment and lack of confidentiality of wage slips – Second respondent (“R”) claimed same facts gave rise to constructive dismissal grievance - Respondent’s wage record practice involved weekly collecting wage books from drivers, calculating pay overnight then returning wage books to box in staff room where material in wage books available to anybody entering staff room – P claimed embarrassed and humiliated other staff knew pay rate – Union raised confidentiality of pay records with respondent – Respondent’s managing director (“H”) and minutes of meeting confirmed parties agreed to make changes to pay keeping system to provide better confidentiality – H attended staff smoko shed and had heated exchange with R – H said if any staff not happy, would give the $5,000 to go – H claimed was flippant remark in heat of moment, not directed at particular employee – Applicants resigned then raised grievances - Authority found payroll information system did not meet obligations imposed on good and fair employer to have confidential payroll system – Authority rejected respondent’s argument that staff discussed pay anyway – Found absolute obligation to provide confidentiality in respect of individual rates of pay and earnings – However, Authority found applicants’ claims not made out because matter raised by union and discussions underway – Found matter in fact resolved several months after raised by union – Applicants relied on H’s remark in smoko shed – Authority accepted H’s evidence that remark flippant and not intended to be relied on – Authority found would need to do more than refer to remark – Found no evidence of breach of duty in making comment – Found one exasperated comment not “course of conduct” – No unjustified dismissal – No unjustified disadvantage – Authority condemned discourteous and inappropriate behaviour of respondent’s counsel in recording Authority directions conference without applicant or Authority’s awareness - Length of service approximately ten years each - Driver |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |