| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 342/10 |
| Hearing date | 26 Apr 2010 |
| Determination date | 02 August 2010 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | M Purves (in person) ; G Peploe |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Purves v Waikato District Health Board |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Applicant claimed raised unjustified disadvantage grievance within time – Claimed terms of new employment agreement (“EA”) caused disadvantage – Authority found no grievance raised after new EA concluded between parties – Found even if grievance raised within time, no jurisdiction to require respondent to alter terms of EA – Applicant claimed suffered discrimination due to “favouritism” in workplace – Found no evidence to support claim – Claimed respondent reimbursed other employees’ travel expenses however did not reimburse applicant – Found applicant employed part-time while other employees employed full-time – Found no disadvantage as respondent offered additional time off in lieu – Claimed final written warning raised within time – Found respondent had no notice of grievance until served with statement of problem five days out of time – However Authority went on to consider whether warning justified – UNJUSTIFED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed final written warning unjustified – Respondent argued warning justified and proper disciplinary procedures followed – Respondent received several complaints about applicant’s conduct – Meeting held to discuss complaint – Applicant raised to respondent unable to complete duties within required time – Parties agreed to support plan – Performance monitoring plan implemented – Performance reviews showed applicant reluctant to work towards required competency levels - Parties agreed applicant’s duties not complex or high in volume therefore could be completed within specified time – Subsequent meeting held to provide applicant opportunity to respond to performance issues – Applicant advised respondent felt “burnt out” – Respondent sought applicant’s consent to be referred for health assessment and Employee Assistance Program – Disciplinary meeting held following more complaints against applicant – Respondent concluded final written warning warranted for poor performance and inappropriate workplace behaviour – Applicant’s performance improved however subsequently resigned – Authority found final warning caused disadvantage however procedurally and substantively justified – Found respondent acted fairly and reasonably at all material times – Found no unjustified disadvantage – Mental Health Nurse |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s114;ERA s161(2) |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 342_10.pdf [pdf 41 KB] |