| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 74/10 |
| Hearing date | 15 Mar 2010 -16 Mar 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 22 April 2010 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | P McBride, J Healy ; A Knowsley |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Masoe v Te Roopu Awhina Ki Porirua Trust |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed dismissal for redundancy unjustified – Applicant, without notice, dismissed for redundancy – Applicant advised to leave workplace immediately – Applicant raised personal grievance and sought immediate reinstatement - Respondent immediately reinstated applicant acknowledging actions unfair – Authority found unjustified dismissal – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - $8,000 compensation appropriate - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Breach of good faith - Applicant claimed investigation for alleged serious misconduct unjustified – After reinstatement, respondent notified applicant of serious misconduct allegations – Allegations supplied to Ministry of Social Development – Applicant raised to respondent allegations lacked specificity and needed further information - Disciplinary meeting held – Applicant advised unable to fully explain allegations due to insufficient information given – Advised responses of preliminary nature – Respondent concluded serious misconduct – Applicant successfully sought interim injunction restraining respondent from continuing with disciplinary process – Personal grievance raised – Applicant claimed respondent unlawfully discriminated against applicant by finding complaints to investigate against applicant – Authority found not probable respondent approached employees to find complaints to investigate - Found respondent rejected some complaints in applicant’s favour – Found no discrimination – Claimed disciplinary procedure unjustified – Found respondent entitled to investigate serious misconduct allegations – Found however applicant entitled to receive all information to answer allegations – Found prudent employer would have ensured applicant had opportunity for full explanation and legal advice as applicant believed answers were preliminary – Found respondent should have interviewed employee who made complaint as questions regarding their credibility arose – Found respondent should have interviewed witness applicant provided – Found failure to conduct full witness interviews contaminated inquiry – Claimed disciplinary process linked to applicant’s reinstatement constituting unlawful discrimination – Found allegations independently made and respondent entitled to investigate allegations – Found disciplinary process not linked to earlier dismissal grievance - Found disciplinary process procedurally unjustified – Found procedural flaws not deliberate to constitute breach of good faith – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - Leave reserved for lost wages award - $6,000 compensation appropriate - PENALTY – Breach of good faith – Applicant sought penalty for beach of good faith – Sought special damages for costs during employment relationship - Authority declined penalty as procedural flaws made not deliberate – Leave reserved for special damages – Manager |
| Result | Applications granted (Unjustified dismissal)(Unjustified disadvantage) ; Application dismissed (Penalty - Good faith) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (Reserved)(Unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000)(Unjustified dismissal) ($6,000)(Unjustified disadvantage) ; Special damages (Reserved) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4A(a);ERA s4A(b)(ii);ERA s63A(3);ERA s103A;ERA s104 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 74_10.pdf [pdf 39 KB] |