| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 206/10 |
| Hearing date | 22 Dec 2010 |
| Determination date | 24 December 2010 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | P McBride, T Mitchell ; S Hornsby-Geluk, A Mollineux |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Katterns v Fairfax Media Ltd |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement - Applicant summarily dismissed for plagiarism and loss of trust and confidence amounting to serious misconduct - Applicant worked as journalist for one of respondent’s newspapers - First paragraph of article applicant wrote very similar to that written by another journalist for different newspaper – Applicant denied having read other article when asked – Applicant’s internet records showed applicant had read article – After disciplinary action initiated applicant posted comment about situation on her Facebook page - Respondent concluded applicant intentionally plagiarised and then misled respondent when asked about it – Found applicant had arguable case - Found were some arguable points about respondent’s process and was arguable case of insufficient substance to warrant dismissal – Found was arguable, but not strongly arguable case similarities inadvertent - Found applicant not necessarily provided with all relevant material for comment prior to dismissal - Found balance of convenience favoured respondent – Applicant claimed chance of permanent reinstatement diminished unless interim reinstatement granted – Authority found permanent reinstatement no less likely remedy if interim reinstatement not granted - Applicant claimed needed good work record, professional integrity, and reputation restored – Found in circumstances those could only be restored following substantive investigation into whether dismissal justified - Applicant claimed needed income to meet financial obligations – Claimed distress about dismissal caused physical illness and distressed children – Found applicant appeared to have sufficient financial resources available until substantive investigation meeting - Found respondent had resources to meet any compensation award if grievance established – Found only children’s distress that could not be adequately covered – However, applicant could claim compensation for upset caused by witnessing children’s distress - Found overall harm to applicant could be mostly rectified by compensation - Found was merit to respondent’s claim reputation could be diminished if applicant reinstated and subsequently found to have plagiarised and lied about it – Found overall justice in favour of respondent – Found apart from arguable case no other feature of case warranted intervention by Authority at current stage - Found early substantive investigation meeting available - Application declined - Journalist |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 206_10.pdf [pdf 30 KB] |