| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 85/09 |
| Hearing date | 17 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 25 March 2009 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | M Ryan ; E Warden |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Marsh v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed not appointed to manager position due to unfair procedures – Applicant unsuccessfully applied for manager position – Employment agreement did not provide right to promotion - Written feedback revealed negative comments made about applicant during recruitment process – Applicant claimed comments false - Respondent reviewed recruitment process – Respondent made recommendations to cure the impact of negative comments and invited resubmission of original application to new panel – Applicant declined claiming resubmission timeframe “too tight” – Authority found respondent’s timely and effective response to applicant’s complaint remedied any disadvantage suffered – Found applicant’s decline to resubmit application unreasonable when only resubmission of original application was required – Applicant claimed involuntary rotation caused disadvantage – Department’s policy provided for voluntary and involuntary rotation of staff upon consultation with the employee concerned – Two month consultation process held with applicant – Respondent decided to involuntarily rotate applicant – Application advised of decision and reasons given – Rotation proposal put to management panel after consultation process ended – Applicant declined to appear before panel – Found decision to rotate made according to fair procedures – No disadvantage |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 85_09.pdf [pdf 27 KB] |