| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 425/10 |
| Hearing date | 13 Aug 2010 |
| Determination date | 29 September 2010 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | C Garvey ; A Russell |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Watson v Counties Manukau District Health Board |
| Summary | MEDIA INTEREST - RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Applicant employed in mental health unit for elderly patients – Allegation applicant and colleague verbally abusive and disrespectful to patient, twisted patient’s fingers causing patient to cry, and kicked patient’s wheelchair and abused patient – Applicant suspended and subsequently dismissed – Other nurse not dismissed – Authority found letter from applicant’s representative to respondent indicated grievance not yet raised in respect of suspension – Found statement amounting to notification of possibility of raising grievance not sufficient to raise grievance itself – Found grievance in respect of suspension not raised in time – Found applicant failed to raise personal grievance in respect of dismissal because dismissal had not occurred at time of correspondence between parties – Found communication lacked specificity to raise grievance – INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Issue determined assuming grievances raised in time or leave granted to raise grievances out of time – Found differing accounts of events – Found likely significant questions of credibility – Found arguable disparity between treatment of applicant and other nurse involved – Found arguable case – Respondent claimed delay in pursuit of matter – Respondent claimed applicant unable to work due to injury – Found unfortunate injury caused application for interim reinstatement to be delayed – Found application for interim reinstatement unnecessary – Respondent claimed applicant unable to work nights and not conducive to new patient care model – Respondent claimed applicant absent while new methods put into effect and training required – Respondent concerned about training in interim period should reinstatement eventually be declined – Respondent concerned about applicant working with complainants – Applicant claimed difficult to find work elsewhere because of location – Applicant claimed willing to undertake training and unavailability for night shifts permitted under new arrangement prior to dismissal – Applicant claimed would not discuss dismissal with anyone – Authority gave more weight to respondent’s concerns – Found damages adequate remedy – Found balance of convenience favoured respondent – Found respondent’s obligations to wider community relevant – Found overall justice favoured respondent – Application for interim reinstatement declined – Senior Registered Nurse |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s3(a);ERA s101(ab);ERA s101(b);ERA s114(1);ERA s114(3);ERA s115(b);ERA s143(b);New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 s 22(1) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland District Health Board v X (No 1) [2005] ERNZ 487;Commissioner of Police v Creedy [2008] ERNZ 109;Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] ERNZ 517;Goodall v Marigny (NZ) Limited [2000] ERNZ 60;Morgan v Quality Environmental Consulting Ltd unreported, R Arthur, 25 Nov 2008, AA 404/08;Winstone Wallbounds Limited v Samate [1993] ERNZ 503 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 425_10.pdf [pdf 51 KB] |