| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 516/10 |
| Determination date | 17 December 2010 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | P Blair ; N Jones |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Z v New Zealand Post Ltd |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant sought interim reinstatement following dismissal for alleged serious misconduct - Respondent advised applicant of allegations possibly amounting to sexual harassment – Disciplinary meeting held – Applicant claimed developed friendship with complainant (“A”) – Applicant refused to provide copies of internet-based communication with A – Respondent claimed complaint received from another customer (“B”) alleging approached by applicant on driveway rather than delivering letters to letterbox and contacted via dating website – Further disciplinary meeting held – Applicant alleged attacked outside A’s house – A stated member of family possibly involved in attack – Applicant assigned duties at Post branch premises rather than delivery round work – Further inquiries made into complaints – Respondent advised applicant of further allegations being investigated – Allegations were inappropriate behaviour, sending sexually explicit text messages to A, acting inappropriately towards A and inappropriate behaviour and contact with B – Respondent referred to similar, historical complaints – Applicant dismissed following disciplinary meeting – Respondent claimed seven allegations amounted to minor misconduct, three allegations taken no further due to inadequate or inconclusive information and sending sexually explicit text messages to A amounted to serious misconduct – Applicant claimed relationship with A mutually flirtatious – Applicant claimed minor misconduct findings mostly to do with company rule about only delivering to mail boxes – Authority found arguable case for establishing unjustifiable dismissal and reinstatement – Found arguable serious evidential deficiencies in reaching conclusion applicant sent sexually explicit text messages – Found arguable certain evidence insufficient to substantiate other allegations – Found arguable internet-based contact between Post employee and customers in own time not necessarily inappropriate – Found arguable handing mail directly to lawful recipient not misconduct – Found balance of convenience favoured applicant – Found concerns for further inquiry about justification for respondent’s actions and decisions – Found difficulties with applicant’s case – Found refusal to provide copies of internet-based communication undermined ability to challenge actions based on available information – Found withholding information factor to go toward possible contribution – Found overall justice favoured interim reinstatement of applicant – Found reinstatement need not be to previous position – Found applicant to be reinstated to pay roll for usual hours – Found applicant to be available for work as directed by respondent – Postie |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | District Courts Act 1947 s56;ERA s3;ERA s101;ERA s127;ERA s127(5);ERA Second Schedule cl10 |
| Cases Cited | Wellington Free Ambulance Service v Adams [2010] NZEMPC 59;X v Y Ltd & NZ Stock Exchange [1992] ERNZ 863 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 516_10.pdf [pdf 68 KB] |