| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 308/09 |
| Hearing date | 24 Aug 2009 |
| Determination date | 28 August 2009 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | P Blair ; P Greene, L Wilson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Whitney v New Zealand Post Ltd |
| Summary | INJUNCTION - Application for interim reinstatement - Applicant dismissed for serious misconduct when informed respondent of theft conviction - Applicant dismissed from previous period of employment with respondent about 10 years ago after plead guilty to dishonesty offence - Current conviction related to theft of $3,500 from previous employer following wage and holiday pay dispute - Applicant claimed had arguable case because offending occurred before began employment with respondent - Applicant claimed timing of conduct underlying conviction was relevant misconduct not timing of conviction - Respondent claimed under collective employment agreement conviction qualified as serious misconduct, and applicant’s conviction received during employment relationship - Authority found applicant had weak arguable case - Applicant claimed balance of convenience favoured her because of financial circumstances - Respondent claimed balance of convenience favoured it because of importance of retaining public trust and confidence in integrity of service - Respondent claimed significant commercial risk arising from negative public reaction to reinstatement of person twice convicted of dishonesty offences - Respondent claimed lost trust and confidence in applicant, and extra supervision required if applicant reinstated - Authority found applicant’s financial losses more likely to be recoverable if successful in substantive matter, while respondent’s losses significantly less tangible and less likely to be recoverable - Found public interest in maintaining confidence in publicly-owned New Zealand postal service, which would be at risk if employee with two convictions for dishonesty offences re-employed on interim basis - Found balance of convenience favoured respondent - Authority found overall justice favoured respondent - Application for interim reinstatement declined - Postie |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | Crimes Act 1961 |
| Cases Cited | Ashton v Shoreline Hotel [1994] 1 ERNZ 421;Murray v Attorney General in respect of the Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department [2002] 1 ERNZ 184 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 308_09.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |