| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 151/09 |
| Hearing date | 15 Dec 2008 |
| Determination date | 12 May 2009 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | G Singh (in person) ; N Ridder |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Singh v District Health Boards of New Zealand Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed misrepresentation of salary - Applicant offered and accepted employment at salary level similar to other team members - Applicant requested respondent review salary following day – Respondent declined – Applicant subsequently discovered other employees performing same role with higher salary – Applicant claimed misrepresentation and unfair bargaining during employment negotiation – Matter referred to mediation but unsuccessful – Authority found no disadvantage or unfair bargaining – Found applicant sophisticated therefore understood matters being negotiated - Applicant claimed purpose of performance review to coerce resignation – Found no evidence to support claim – Applicant claimed refusal to increase salary caused disadvantage – Letter advised applicant performance poor and meeting held – Respondent advised applicant’s performance improved but overall performance not of specified standard to be eligible for salary adjustment – Applicant paid partial bonus to acknowledge improvements – Applicant sent letter requesting salary adjustment which respondent declined – Found applicant had no right to salary increase – Found salary review process consistent with employment agreement (“EA”) - Found salary review conclusion reasonable – Applicant claimed entitled to risk component being assessed against “key performance indicators (“KPIs”) for specific projects as agreed” – Found no assessment against KPIs done for specific projects – Found only one not two assessments carried out as provided in EA – Found both parties failed to consider KPIs therefore no disadvantage – Applicant claimed written warning unjustified – Decision to issue written warning regarding poor performance delegated to Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) – CEO issued written warning - Found respondent correctly delegated authority to CEO however applicant entitled to be heard by decision-maker before decision made – Found right to be heard fundamental and could not be delegated – Disadvantage unjustified – REMEDIES – Authority declined to award compensation – Warning would still have been issued if applicant heard by CEO – Employment Relations Specialist |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s68;ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Quinn v Bank of New Zealand Limited [1991] 1 ERNZ 1060;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 151_09.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |