| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 243/10 |
| Hearing date | 17 Dec 2008 |
| Determination date | 24 May 2010 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | J Watson ; D France, C Stewart |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Richards v The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Waikato |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant claimed respondent’s decision to decline applicant’s study leave request caused unjustified disadvantage – Claimed decision in retaliation of applicant’s formal disclosure against respondent’s conduct – Claimed victimised contrary to Human Rights Act 1993 (“HRA”) – Applicant applied for study leave to continue writing manuscript – Respondent’s professor (“Z”) approved leave – Respondent’s Chairperson (“B”) reported to respondent’s Dean (“D”) manuscript of potential publishable quality however modest output for ten years research efforts – Applicant made “protected disclosure complaint” regarding respondent’s alleged breach of staff exchange obligations – Z advised D “dissatisfied” with applicant’s study request – Respondent’s Deputy Vice Chancellor (“DV”) declined applicant’s leave however advised did not doubt applicant “pursued purposes of leave conscientiously or in good faith” – Personal grievance raised – Applicant claimed no opportunity to comment on B and Z’s request unjustified – Claimed respondent’s policy did not provide leave granted only on basis of publication – Claimed sufficient to show “how purposes for which leave was granted have been pursued conscientiously, effectively and in good faith” – Authority found Z initially approved leave for purpose of applicant finishing manuscript – Found applicant given no opportunity to comment on B and Z’s negative comments – Found policy not require applicant to demonstrate absolute achievement of finished book but rather “pursue” purpose of finishing manuscript – Found B and Z did not direct themselves to whether applicant applied for leave to pursue that purpose – Found respondent’s actual expectation not put to applicant before adverse findings made – Found wrong and unfair to assess applicant in terms of historical leave periods – Found decision making process did not follow policy – Found unjustified disadvantage – Authority made no finding whether decision retaliatory and whether HRA breached – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - $2,000 compensation appropriate – Declined order to reinstate applicant’s ability to accrue study leave as appropriate action for respondent to revisit matter according to Authority interpretation of leave policy – Senior Lecturer |
| Result | Application granted ; Order declined ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Human Rights Act 1993 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 243_10.pdf [pdf 54 KB] |