Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 177/09
Hearing date 27 Apr 2009
Determination date 03 June 2009
Member A Dumbleton
Representation J Chen (in person) ; L Caughley
Location Auckland
Parties Chen v New Zealand Sugar Company Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Written warning - Applicant received oral warning from manager (“G”) at end of disciplinary meeting – G confirmed warning in writing and advised would remain on file for 6 months, then be destroyed – Applicant resigned before warning expired – Applicant raised disadvantage grievance and claimed disadvantage caused resignation – Applicant sought apology and compensation – Applicant confirmed in investigation meeting that dismissal grievance not raised – Authority found dismissal grievance not raised within 90 day period regardless – Respondent arranged counselling with applicant regarding workplace relationships – Respondent sent to applicant written record of ground rules and guidelines, and advised failure to improve behaviour could lead to disciplinary action – G considered applicant’s subsequent behaviour disrespectful, argumentative and lacking in team spirit – G issued warning – Authority found warning ineffective as disciplinary warning – Found not a warning – Found respondent had not sought to rely on ‘warning’ for any subsequent purpose – Found no disadvantage to applicant’s employment – Found ‘warning’ on file justified – Found respondent’s actions fair and reasonable – Found G advised ‘warning’ duration short and would be destroyed – Found respondent did not encourage applicant to resign – No unjustified disadvantage - Procurement controller
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s4;ERA s103A;ERA s114
Cases Cited Griffith v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd unreported, Couch J, 28 Jul 2006, WC 13/06
Number of Pages 6
PDF File Link: aa 177_09.pdf [pdf 20 KB]