| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 365/10 |
| Hearing date | 25 Jun 2010 |
| Determination date | 18 August 2010 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | M Reddy (in person) ; M Holdsworth |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Reddy v Department of Labour |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by not being notified on time of new salary and therefore unable to challenge new salary and performance rating – Also claimed repetitive strain injury (“RSI”) not taken into account when performance assessment completed – Respondent argued claims outside 90 day period – Authority noted salary increases performance linked only and no additional across board increases – Applicant ineligible for salary progression for relevant period following performance review in July 2008 – Subsequently respondent settled new collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – As result of changes to remuneration policy offers of variations to employment agreements issued to employees on individual employment agreements (“IEA”) – Offer of variation made to applicant in December 2008 containing salary increase – Applicant made counter offer which respondent declined – Applicant chose not to request review of performance appraisal – Applicant raised grievance that respondent had not accepted counter offer – Applicant claimed disadvantaged because offer made in December 2008 rather than July 2008 – Authority found offer would not have been any different if made in July 2008 rather than December 2008 – Found evident applicant’s concern precipitated by realisation of new salary structure – Found applicant thought if obtained better performance rating might have been able to obtain more money – Found applicant appeared to be confused regarding existence of union negotiated CEA for union members and separate process for employees on IEAs – Found respondent acted appropriately when became aware of applicant’s health difficulties – Found respondent did not consent to grievance being raised outside 90 day period – Found applicant’s grievances regarding challenge to performance review and failure to take medical condition into account in making performance assessment were out of time – Authority noted if grievances had not been out of time would have found applicant did not have personal grievance – Found applicant’s argument failed to recognise difference between performance rating itself and whatever salary structure happened to be in place at time – Found no obligation on respondent to accept counter offer – Found no unjustified disadvantage – Immigration Officer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA 2000 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 365_10.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |