| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 12/10 |
| Hearing date | 10 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 18 January 2010 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | M Ryan ; P Wicks |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Lloyd-Barker v The Society for the Preventions of Cruelty to Animals Auckland Inc. |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed firstly, unjustifiably disadvantaged in consideration for CEO role and secondly, for two warnings received – Respondent denied applicant suffered any disadvantage during employment – Applicant sent email to incumbent CEO (“K”) questioning new CEO appointment given economic climate – Applicant also referred to expenses involved, staff reductions, and possibility of no pay increases – Respondent’s chairman (“T”) received inquiry from news reporter posing questions “related directly” to and with “intimate knowledge” of matters raised by applicant – Respondent invited applicant to discuss apparent breach of confidence – Subsequently applicant questioned K about issues with animals on personal property – K replied no issues and strongly advised applicant against “digging for dirt” – Applicant claimed undertook own investigation into K – Applicant wrote to T pertaining to allegation relating to welfare of animals on K’s property – Applicant given first warning for failing to comply with instructions and communication of sensitive information without authority – Applicant also instructed to provide information given to Police and names of witnesses related to K’s investigation – Applicant given second warning and told inappropriate in circumstances to make inquiries into potential issue involving K – Applicant reminded incident involving K occurred 14 to 15 years ago, limits on information, and no legitimate basis for going to media – Authority found first disadvantage claim subsumed into unjustified dismissal claim – Authority found respondent failed to conduct full and fair investigation into how newspaper obtained information reported – Revealed at investigation meeting not applicant who provided information to reporter – Found although applicant’s response to allegation less than helpful, did not excuse failure to conduct full investigation – First warning unjustified – Remedies – Not situation where employment became tenuous – Found little evidence of claimed significant anxiety and embarrassment – Authority assessed effect of unjustified warning as minimal – Found $500 compensation appropriate – Authority found applicant chose to ignore instruction from T not to investigate K when T taking full responsibility for file – Found second warning fully justified – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed respondent pursued applicant’s redundancy because applicant questioned prudence of decision making – Authority found applicant moved from raising genuine financial concerns to erroneous personal crusade against senior officers – Found disciplinary action and redundancy distinct and separate courses of action by respondent – Found redundancy of applicant fair and reasonable decision – General manager/Inspectorate manager |
| Result | Application dismissed (Dismissal) ; Application granted (Disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($500) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s4;ERA s103A;ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s123(1)(c)(i);Protected Disclosures Act 2000 |
| Cases Cited | Matthes v NZ Post Ltd [1994] 1 ERNZ 994;Alliance Freezing Company (Southland) Ltd v NZ Amalgamated Engineering etc;IOUW [1989] 3 NZILR 785 ; [1990] 1 NZLR 533 ; (1989) ERNZ Sel Cas 575 (CA);Simpson Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] 1 ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 23 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 12_10.pdf [pdf 86 KB] |