| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 359/08 |
| Hearing date | 2 Apr 2008 : 4 Aug 2008 (5 days) |
| Determination date | 17 October 2008 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | R Lewis (in person) ; R Harrison |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Lewis v Howick College Board of Trustees |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed first disadvantage that respondent never properly addressed applicant’s bullying grievance raised five years prior – Authority found letter of complaint to Principal (“D”) raised personal grievance – Found D engaged independent investigator who produced report – Applicant’s legal representative complained about report and suggested mediation – Parties attended mediation but no settlement reached – Authority found applicant barred from pursuing grievance by s114(6) Employment Relations Act 2000 as more than three years elapsed since grievance first raised - Applicant claimed second disadvantage that not reimbursed expenses for overseas trip two years prior – Authority accepted common knowledge staff members accompanying school trip overseas would receive full salary but no reimbursement of expenses – Found D explicitly clear to applicant prior to trip expenses not recoverable – Applicant claimed issues on trip resulted in spending more time on official activity than anticipated – Authority found applicant embarked on trip knowing conditions – Found was not “official” trip as defined in collective employment agreement (“CEA”) so no entitlement to expenses under CEA – Found respondent under no legal obligation to reimburse further monies for trip - Applicant thirdly claimed subjected to intolerable workload and workplace bullying – D argued workload not higher than other teachers, but regardless responded to applicant’s complaints by arranging additional administrative support, management unit and one additional day off per month – Authority rejected applicant’s argument that workload intolerable or D failed to assist – Found no evidence workload greater than other teachers - Found respondent provided appropriate support – Applicant provided list of 50 incidents of alleged bullying over three year period - Applicant claimed manager (“R”) failed to attend mediation regarding earlier grievance, spoke aggressively and abruptly, and once shouted at applicant – Claimed respondent’s failure to reimburse expenses for trip and to consider or provide for safety and welfare of students and staff on trip constituted bullying – Claimed bullied during disciplinary process – Authority found those around applicant reacted in predictable way to applicant’s behaviour towards them – Found applicant not bullied - Applicant fourthly claimed suspension during investigation into complaint by R unjustified – Authority found CEA provided for suspension where welfare and interests of student or employee required intervention – Found respondent advised applicant of concerns, possibility of suspension and gave opportunity for input – Found respondent considered applicant’s input and decided due to increasingly erratic behaviour, suspension necessary – Suspension justified – Disadvantages justified - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed dismissal for bullying and harassment of co-worker unjustified – Applicant claimed respondent retaliated to applicant’s protected disclosure to Ministry of Education – Authority found evidence supported respondent not aware of protected disclosure until after began disciplinary investigation into applicant’s conduct – Found R made complaint well before applicant laid complaint – Found dismissal not in retaliation for applicant’s protected disclosure complaint – Found R’s complaint of bullying by applicant serious and respondent’s investigation necessary – Found only minor defects in respondent’s process – Found applicant responded that complaint vexatious and applicant one wronged – Found respondent acted as fair and reasonable employer – Dismissal justified – Authority noted reinstatement would have been impractical even if grievance succeeded - Economics teacher |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s114(6) |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 359_08.pdf [pdf 61 KB] |