| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 134/08 |
| Hearing date | 4 Sep 2008 |
| Determination date | 02 October 2008 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | M Smith ; K Elkin, J Jones |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Dickson v Unilever New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Whether grievances raised within 90 days - Applicant had number of non-work-related and work-related injury claims with ACC - Applicant given indication possibility would be found unfit to return to process worker position - Applicant underwent surgery and never returned to full time employment - Applicant’s employment terminated for medical reasons - Applicant gave respondent letter saying raising unjustified dismissal personal grievance and particulars would follow - Particulars provided nearly three months later - Applicant claimed letter raised personal grievance within time - Claimed if letter not satisfactory to put respondent on notice, respondent’s background knowledge of matter sufficient to put it on reasonable notice - Application also made application for exceptional circumstances - Authority found as parties had previously discussed redundancy could have been at least two issues claim could have been about - Found unreasonable to expect respondent to understand what grievance was when no remedies sought and no proposals made on how to resolve problem or identify it - Authority rejected applicant’s claim background meant respondent would have known what was being claimed - Found background included applicant’s injury, discussions on redundancy and discussion on amount payable to applicant on termination of employment - Found applicant’s responsibility to get advice or proceed and provide particulars in 90 days, especially as employment agreement (“CEA”) provided access to dispute resolution procedure and partner was union delegate - Found personal grievance not raised within 90 days - Authority found grounds for exceptional circumstances not established - BREACH OF CONTRACT - Applicant claimed respondent breached CEA by requiring her to work on packing line against her will - Authority found claim for breach arose out of applicant’s attempt to obtain damages for personal injury that allegedly resulted from transfer to packing duties and then led to termination of employment - Found such damages barred by s317(1) Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 - Found cause of action relied upon to allege breach of CEA related directly to personal injury matter, and Authority would not have jurisdiction to provide remedies sought - Found issue was resolved when applicant agreed to transfer - Authority found applicant’s other claim for breach of contract essentially related to termination of employment - Found s113(1) Employment Relations Act 2000 prevented employee from bringing breach of contract claim in relation to termination of employment - Found damages claim outside Authority’s jurisdiction - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - During investigation meeting applicant claimed had unjustified disadvantage grievance arising out of discussion between parties - Authority found no unjustified disadvantage - Packing line worker |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s113;ERA s113(1);ERA s114;Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 s317;Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 s318 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 134_08.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |