| Summary |
INTERIM INJUNCTION – Application to restrain respondent from taking further disciplinary action against applicant – Former employee (“X”) made formal complaints against applicant – Respondent’s manager (“T”) investigated complaints – T alleged against applicant serious misconduct including dishonesty, misappropriation of funds, failure to follow proper processes and falsification of records – T gave applicant three days to respond - Applicant requested further information however gave respondent “preliminary” written response - T advised Ministry of Social Development (“MSD”) of allegations as T believed was required to – Applicant claimed allegations an attempt to “smear” applicant’s reputation and chance in tendering process for new MSD programme – Disciplinary meeting held – Applicant attended without legal representative – T subsequently advised applicant would not accept response as “preliminary” and found allegations proven – Applicant claimed findings made without reference back to applicant therefore findings unjustified – No clear evidence T gave consideration to applicant’s nominated witnesses, who T interviewed and what information T considered in decision making process - Authority found arguable case on six heads – First, whether applicant given sufficient time and information to respond to allegations – Second, whether fair and reasonable for respondent to not accept response as “preliminary” and proceed with matter on documents – Third, whether fair and reasonable for respondent to make findings without reference back to applicant – Fourth, whether X credible witness and whether complaints put to applicant – Fifth, whether allegations had temporal connection with previous dismissal and subsequent reinstatement – Sixth, whether applicant discriminated against on basis of raising personal grievance in regards to dismissal and reinstatement – Applicant claimed balance of convenience in their favour as detriment to applicant greater than harm to respondent if injunction declined – Respondent undertook to not take further disciplinary action until Authority’s interim determination - Found balance and overall justice favoured applicant as applicant entitled to fair investigation to avoid wrongful conclusion given seriousness of allegation and risk posed to applicant’s integrity and employment - Authority declined to give orders on investigation procedure as applicant had not agreed to order and investigation process a matter for employer – Authority noted respondent may commence fresh investigation and disciplinary process - Interim injunction granted – Team Leader |