| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 439/09 |
| Hearing date | 12 Nov 2009 |
| Determination date | 09 December 2009 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | L Campbell ; S Cook |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Cruikshank v Chief Executive, Unitec Institute of Technology |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Serious misconduct – Respondent and Plumbing, Gasfitting, Drainlaying and Roofing Industry Training Organisation (“PGDRITO”) reached agreement respondent would begin offering courses developed by PGDRITO – Apprentice Training Trust (“ATT”) decided in future would put apprentices through PGDRITO courses instead of respondent’s alternative programme – If respondent did not offer PGDRITO courses, other training providers providing PGDRITO would pick up students – Applicant unhappy with proposal – Respondent’s immediate manager (“R”) told applicant “not a good idea” to contact plumbing firms and students directly and reasons provided – Applicant wrote to plumbing firms and students to inform of benefits of respondent’s programme – Respondent’s unaware of applicant’s actions until received letter from PGDRITO’s lawyers alleging letters defamatory and threatened legal action – Applicant suspended – Respondent investigated matter and concluded applicant’s actions serious misconduct warranting dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed – Applicant also claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension and marginalised by exclusion from discussion about new programme – Authority found applicant gave no satisfactory explanation why chose to send out letters in face of R’s advice – Found respondent’s conclusions fair and reasonable – Found content and tone of applicant’s letters served to promote respondent’s courses at expense of PGDRITO’s courses – Authority did not accept respondent failed to consider applicant acted in best interests of students and industry – Found manner dismissal notified irregular but not fatal overall – Dismissal justified – Authority dismissed applicant’s claim that marginalised – Found suspension procedurally unjustified – Disadvantage unjustified – Remedies - Found suspension substantively justified – Found only modest compensation required to remedy defective process – Found $1,000 compensation appropriate – Head of Department |
| Result | Application dismissed (Dismissal) ; Application granted (Disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 19 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 439_09.pdf [pdf 50 KB] |