| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 342/08 |
| Hearing date | 16 Jul 2008 - 29 Jul 2008 (4 days) |
| Determination date | 29 September 2008 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | E Hartdegen ; P Muir |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | A v Auckland City Council |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Whether grievance raised within 90 days - Applicant claimed disadvantaged in employment due to sexual harassment victimisation and bullying by colleague (“Z”) – Applicant propositioned by Z for sex and claimed that after incident Z used position to bully and victimise applicant – Applicant did not report incident nor allegations of bullying until five years after incident occurred - Authority found grievance not raised within 90 days – Disadvantage grievance dismissed - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed Z played major part in applicant’s redundancy – Respondent developed new management strategy – Two new positions replaced applicant’s position – Authority found new positions substantially different from applicant’s old position – Respondent told applicant to apply for new positions – Applicant believed was deliberately excluded from applying for positions due to minimum requirements advertised and not encouraged to apply – Applicant raised grievance, and communications became more formal – Authority found incident coloured relationship between applicant and Z – However, found Z did not play role in final redundancy decision – Found full consultation took place – Applicant genuinely redundant and process fair – However, Authority found way defendant managed applicant’s departure fell short of what fair and reasonable employer would have done – Found defendant did not meet obligation under s1A(b) Employment Relations Act 2000 to be constructive and communicative – Found although applicant did not seek defendant’s advice on applying, applicant should have been fully informed and supported throughout process – Dismissal unjustified - Remedies – No contributory conduct – Due to respondent’s inaction, applicant suffered stress, hurt and humiliation greater than would otherwise have suffered – Compensation appropriate |
| Result | Application granted (dismissal) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Application dismissed (disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s1A(b);ERA s114(1) |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 342_08.pdf [pdf 45 KB] |