| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 93/09 |
| Hearing date | 10 Jul 2009 |
| Determination date | 14 July 2009 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | S Webster ; J Rooney |
| Location | Napier |
| Parties | Owen v The Public Trust |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Length of service of 40 years – Respondent argued applicant dismissed for breaching code of conduct related to complaint received about applicant from member of public (“complainant”) – Complainant argued invested life savings in finance companies now in receivership relying on applicant’s advice – Respondent argued applicant provided investment advice contrary to employment agreement – Respondent turned to investigate allegations about applicant after investigating complaint and reaching settlement with complainant – Applicant argued at disciplinary meeting never gave investment advice and respondent should be wary of complainant – Applicant argued should not have to pay penalty for respondent’s settlement and if any wrongdoing only warning justified – Respondent did not advise applicant of contents of interview with investment adviser who provided investment products to complainant – Applicant dismissed – Applicant declined offer of resignation with one months notice – Authority found question existed about who was actual dismissal decision maker – Found possible on full investigation respondent should have disclosed information to applicant – Found dismissal one step process – Found applicant had arguable case for unjustified dismissal – Authority found because of respondent’s undertaking, financial position of applicant, and fact difficult for respondent to supervise applicant, balance of convenience marginally favoured respondent – Authority found appeared from documents applicant may have breached code of conduct when spoke to complainant over many years regarding investment products not offered by respondent – Authority found fact applicant should have known not to become involved despite best motives lessens prospect of reinstatement following substantive investigation, given role and conservative operation of respondent – Found overall justice favoured respondent – Interim reinstatement declined – Estate manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Cases Cited | Cliff v Air New Zealand Ltd [2005] 1 ERNZ 1;Melville v Chatham Islands Council [1999] 2 ERNZ 76 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 93_09.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |