| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 161/09 |
| Hearing date | 29 Jul 2009 - 30 Jul 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 22 October 2009 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | D Burton ; H Kynaston, B Shone |
| Location | Palmerston North |
| Parties | Kent v Massey University |
| Summary | BREACH OF CONTRACT - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed respondent breached employment agreement (“EA”), caused her unjustified disadvantage and breached mediated settlement in way handled complaints about bullying and harassment by manager (“H”) - Parties had attended mediation where agreed applicant would lodge formal complaint about historical bullying complaints which respondent would investigate - Respondent began investigation and one of complaints so serious elevated to higher managerial level - Applicant still experiencing issues with H but then H resigned - Respondent claimed believed as H resigned applicant’s complaint disposed of - Applicant not consulted about respondent’s conclusion - Applicant claimed no closure on complaints - Applicant claimed subjected to bullying and harassment, unsafe and unhealthy workplace, respondent failed to take complaints seriously and resolve complaints speedily, engaged in misleading or deceiving conduct and was not communicative and responsive - Authority found respondent took applicant’s bullying and harassment complaints seriously - Found respondent had adequate explanation for time taken to investigate complaints and had not failed to resolve complaints speedily - Found applicant constructive and responsive - Found evidence showed applicant not subjected to unsafe and unhealthy workplace - Found respondent did not breach harassment and bullying policy - Found no breach terms of mediated settlement - Found open to fair and reasonable employer to conclude could not investigate matter further once H resigned - However, found fair and reasonable employer would not have come to conclusion without consulting applicant - Found applicant should have been consulted and kept informed rather than assuming complaint would end with H’s resignation - However, found applicant not disadvantaged by conclusion respondent reached - Found H had left and aim of personal grievances was to find resolution to having to work with H - No unjustified disadvantage - PENALTY - Found respondent not acting wilfully or maliciously in not properly communicating assumption on ending investigation when H resigned - Breach not serious enough to warrant penalty - Physical Resources Manager |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl10(1) |
| Cases Cited | Anderson v Employment Tribunal [1992] 1 ERNZ 500 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 161_09.pdf [pdf 43 KB] |