| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 197/10 |
| Determination date | 29 April 2010 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | M Ryan ; E Inger |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Tuck v Anglican Care (Waiapu) Ltd |
| Summary | INTERIM INJUNCTION – Interim reinstatement – Applicant sought reinstatement following dismissal for bullying – Respondent argued dismissal justified – Argued alternatively reinstatement impractical – Altercation occurred between applicant and employee (“X”) – X complained applicant bullying and intimidating X – Disciplinary meeting held – Applicant advised of complaint and denied bullying allegation – Applicant explained incidents were joking and personality conflict – Respondent concerned about X’s health and safety in workplace – Complaints about applicant’s behaviour had been raised in past – Applicant did not take responsibility for conduct and blamed others – Applicant summarily dismissed – Parties accepted applicant had weak arguable case for unjustified dismissal – Applicant claimed balance of convenience in their favour as had right to work and would suffer financial loss – Claimed divisions in workplace associated with applicant would make supervision necessary if applicant reinstated - Respondent argued balance in their favour as would suffer loss of clients, drop in workplace morale, and impact on customer service – Authority found balance in respondent’s behaviour as difficulties associated with applicant outweighed applicant’s right to work – Applicant claimed overall justice for reinstatement as applicant good employee – Respondent argued reinstatement impractical as X would resign and applicant’s alleged conduct serious – Found even if dismissal unjustified, reinstatement impracticable therefore overall justice favoured respondent – Interim reinstatement declined – Gardener and Maintenance Person |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Cases Cited | Auckland District Health Board v X (No 1) [2005] ERNZ 487;Madar v P & O Services (NZ) Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 174 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 197_10.pdf [pdf 20 KB] |