| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 434/09 |
| Hearing date | 3 Jul 2009 - 6 Jul 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 04 December 2009 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | C Comeskey ; G Bevan, L Hsin |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Cook v APN New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed respondent breached privacy obligations and unjustifiably suspended, warned, demoted, and dismissed – Police officers from drug squad attended respondent’s premises and stated had observed vehicle registered to respondent near “address of interest” and sought to speak to applicant – Respondent’s editor (“C”) gave officers applicant’s address assuming was readily ascertainable – Officers visited applicant’s home and stated conducting drug related investigation into address where vehicle observed – Applicant telephoned C and reported had done nothing wrong and not involved in drugs – Privacy – Authority found in absence of argument on point from applicant as related to privacy, C’s action did not affect condition of applicant’s employment – Found Authority had no jurisdiction regarding privacy breaches as cause of action in own right – Suspension – Applicant suspended after did not provide undertakings as requested by respondent – Found respondent attempting to investigate matters and imposed suspension because encountering difficulties causing suspicions to deepen – Authority found suspicion of misconduct did not concern association with drugs – Found suspicions could have been allayed by fuller and earlier responses from applicant – Found instead aggravated because responses did not answer important questions – Found respondent’s trust and confidence weakened because of applicant’s responses to requests for undertakings – Found suspension justified – Warning – Authority found warnings for failure to provide information justified – Demotion – Demotion concerned change in title and loss of ability to participate in strategy sessions – Found on information available to respondent, applicant’s conduct not consistent with conduct reasonably expected of someone whose role included participating at management level – No unjustified disadvantage – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Found instructions that material be provided lawful and reasonable – Found prompter, more responsive and co-operative approach might have avoided dismissal – Found reason given for dismissal was loss of trust and confidence as result of view applicant had not been honest or open in responses and breached final warning – Found applicant should have provided notes and assurances promptly when asked rather than delaying and invoking unsupported illness – Dismissal justified – Senior journalist/Assistant editor |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s123;Privacy Act 1993 |
| Cases Cited | Graham v Airways Corp of NZ [2005] ERNZ 587 |
| Number of Pages | 20 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 434_09.pdf [pdf 59 KB] |