| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 437/09 |
| Hearing date | 25 Feb 2008 - 29 Feb 2008 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 07 December 2009 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | D Chesterman, K Jones ; M Hammond |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Wynne v The Order of St John Midland Regional Trust Board |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Serious misconduct – Suspension – Applicant suspended while respondent investigated allegations of sexual harassment, bullying, unauthorised disclosure of co-worker’s sexual orientation, bringing of personal matters into workplace with detrimental effect upon other employees, misleading respondent, attempt to discredit co-worker’s integrity, and inappropriate and insensitive behaviour causing disharmony and resentment – Respondent received ten complaints from six complainants who were staff and volunteers of respondent – Applicant summarily dismissed – Applicant argued several procedural defects in respondent’s investigation of allegations – Authority found applicant understood complaints – Found information respondent relied upon to make decisions put to applicant – Found respondent entitled to conclude majority of applicant’s conduct complained of occurred in way described – Found respondent’s credibility finding in favour of witnesses fair and reasonable – Found no bias or predetermination in decision to suspend or in any decisions regarding disciplinary actions and dismissal – No unjustified disadvantage – Applicant argued decision to dismiss substantively wrong – Authority found respondent entitled to conclude on evidence allegations proven – Authority rejected applicant’s argument respondent focused on finding evidence to support complaints – Found applicant given opportunity to comment on proposed sanction of dismissal – Found performance issues not wrongly treated as misconduct and correct legal tests applied – Found applicant properly consulted and not misled during subsequent restructuring process – Authority discussed earlier related personal grievance claims brought by persons involved in present case – Found additional evidence did not render conclusions reached by respondent regarding complaints untenable – Dismissal justified – Advanced paramedic |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Chief Executive of Unitec Institute of Technology v Henderson (2007) 8 NZELC 98;X v Auckland District Health Board [2007] ERNZ 66 |
| Number of Pages | 22 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 437_09.pdf [pdf 70 KB] |