| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 204/09 |
| Hearing date | 27 Nov 2009 |
| Determination date | 30 November 2009 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | H Nichols ; G Service |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Nichols v IAG New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant claimed dismissed for being strong union workplace delegate therefore unjustified – Claimed serious misconduct allegation to cover up real reason for dismissal - Respondent argued no ulterior motive – Argued dismissal for serious misconduct and abusing union delegate position – Applicant received written warning for inappropriate language and intimidating manner towards customers and colleagues – Applicant raised personal grievance - Applicant deployed to another position following complaints about applicant’s conduct from significant client – Applicant raised second grievance – Applicant distributed questionnaires to colleagues in workplace for views on dealings with customers and asked colleagues to support grievance – Disciplinary meeting held – Respondent concluded serious misconduct – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed arguable case because complaints began only when applicant became union delegate therefore warning and dismissal unjustified – Respondent argued no arguable case because applicant undermined respondent by recruiting support for grievance, brought respondent into disrepute and abused position as union delegate – Authority found no arguable case on respondent’s procedures as no obvious departure by respondent from disciplinary policy – Found weak arguable case whether applicant’s conduct sufficiently serious to impair trust and confidence – Applicant claimed balance of convenience in their favour as suffered severe financial loss and mental health would worsen if not reinstated – Respondent argued balance in their favour as reinstatement would cause disruption to respondent as applicant would need to be deployed to alternative position until substantive hearing – Argued case for permanent reinstatement weak – Argued compensation adequate remedy if dismissal found unjustified – Authority found balance and overall justice favoured respondent as harm suffered by respondent greater than harm to applicant – Found no evidence to support applicant’s claim mental health would worsen and substantive hearing before applicant’s funds exhausted – Authority declined respondent’s argument applicant not coming to Authority with “clean hands” – Applicant entitled to assumption claim genuine – Application for reinstatement declined – Broker Claims Consultant |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v V (2009) 6 NZELR 582 (EC) |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 204_09.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |