| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 57 |
| Hearing date | 5 Jul 2010 - 6 Jul 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 11 February 2011 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | L Dunn (in person) ; A Russell |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Dunn v The Commissioner of Police |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed suffered unjustified disadvantage when requests for salary increase on basis of previous work experience and relevant education denied - Applicant had been police officer for 14 years in South Africa prior to immigrating to New Zealand – Applicant initially worked as security officer then applied and accepted into New Zealand Police – Parties subject to collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – CEA provided for appointments to be made to remuneration bands which had upper and lower limit – CEA provided for appointment to specific level between upper and lower limits taking into account certain factors including previous work experience – Applicant sought consideration to being placed on higher salary given previous experience with South African police – Applicant’s request denied – Over next eight years applicant made number of unsuccessful requests to have previous work experience recognised and salary increased – Applicant then raised personal grievance - Respondent claimed grievance not raised within 90 days – Authority found grievance not raised within 90 days and also not raised within three year limitation period as action first giving rise to alleged grievance occurred more than three years ago - No jurisdiction – Found no evidence of disparity of treatment - Found even if grievance had been raised in time respondent’s actions did not affect term of applicant’s employment to his disadvantage – Found applicant treated consistently with wording of CEA - DISCRIMINATION - Applicant claimed offered different terms and conditions of employment to officers recruited through UK scheme – UK scheme involved respondent recruiting police officers from United Kingdom (“UK”) to be deployed to areas respondent had difficulty filling vacancies and officers were bonded to that area for two years – Officers underwent different testing process and had their previous service recognised - Applicant claimed fact that all officers recruited from UK normally lived and worked in UK meant all of UK national origin despite some being different race or ethnicity – Applicant claimed discriminated against on basis of nationality - Authority satisfied national origins of recruits in UK scheme varied and were not just British - Found reason respondent did not increase applicant’s salary not related to national origin, rather that applicant already sworn officer in rank of sergeant before UK scheme implemented – Found applicant already subject to terms and conditions of employment in CEA - Found UK scheme implemented to assist respondent to recruit large numbers of officers to fill gap in recruitment of officers within New Zealand - Found recruits subject to limits on location could be posted and required to serve for at least two years before could apply to move to new district - Authority satisfied officers employed under UK scheme not employed in same or substantially similar circumstances as applicant - Found applicant had not been discriminated against in his employment – Found no evidence that, but for his ethnic or national origins applicant’s service with South African Police would have been recognised - GOOD FAITH - Applicant claimed respondent’s refusal to consider previous service for remuneration purposes was breach of good faith and was deceptive – Claimed recognising service for recruits who were not part of UK scheme also amounted to breach of good faith – Authority found statutory duty of good faith applied to Police only after 1 October 2008 – Found all of applicant’s applications and respondent’s refusals to increase salary occurred prior to that date – Found therefore actions of respondent relevant to allegations raised by applicant not covered by statutory obligation – Authority found also no evidence of conduct meeting test for breach of duty of good faith - Found no evidence to support finding respondent mislead or deceived applicant as to remuneration policy and reasons why review of remuneration refused - BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant claimed respondent breached EEO policy – Authority found no evidence to establish any breaches of respondent’s obligations to be good employer - Police officer |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s104;ERA s104(1);ERA s114;ERA s114(6);Policing Act 2008 s22(2);State Sector Act 1988 56;State Sector Act 1988 58 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |