| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 201/09 |
| Hearing date | 1 Dec 2009 - 2 Dec 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 17 December 2009 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | S Hughes ; A Sherriff |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Dodd v Secretary for Justice |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant’s relative (“Y”) faced number of charges relating to conduct towards former partner (“X”) - Charges laid in Court applicant managed - X complained to applicant’s manager that applicant might behave inappropriately if matter remained in Court applicant managed - Y’s case transferred to another Court - Applicant learned X had submitted unfavourable victim impact statement when believed submitting favourable one - Applicant rang and questioned X about victim impact statement - X’s father complained about applicant’s conduct - Respondent investigated matter and found applicant had also accessed Y’s file in respondent’s Case Management System (“CMS”) - Applicant claimed only accessed CMS at request of Y’s lawyer (“K”) - Respondent’s Higher Courts General Manager (“H”) concluded applicant’s actions raised trust and confidence issue, constituted conflict of interest, and brought integrity of justice system into disrepute - Applicant summarily dismissed for serious misconduct - Authority found accessing CMS not breach of CMS guidelines - Found K able to obtain information from other Court staff - Found general practice that registry staff accessed CMS details for other Court registries - Found accessing CMS not misconduct - Found contacting X constituted serious misconduct - However, found dismissal not inevitable outcome - Found H made decision partly on factors not put to applicant - Found H should have spoken to applicant’s manager about applicant - Found H formed view about applicant and X’s relationship without checking - Found H formed adverse view of applicant accessing CMS - Found H did not interview K - Found H failed to acknowledge circumstances and motivation relevant - Decision not that of fair and reasonable employer - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Authority found parties had stable and positive employment history - Found applicant highly regarded in legal community - Respondent provided insufficient evidence as to impracticability of reinstatement - Reinstatement ordered - Authority accepted applicant very severely affected by termination of employment - No compensation awarded as distress direct result of applicant’s actions - Applicant did not mitigate loss - No reimbursement of lost wages awarded - Manager for Courts |
| Result | Application granted ; Reinstatement ordered ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415 |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 201_09.pdf [pdf 61 KB] |