| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 87 |
| Hearing date | 1 Oct 2010 |
| Determination date | 08 March 2011 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | M Whitehead ; J Douglas |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kennedy v Brambles New Zealand Ltd t/a Recall New Zealand |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent – Applicant required to review all work orders to ensure labelling and packaging correct before despatch from warehouse – Respondent discovered documents packaged together rather than in separate satchels according to due process – Respondent claimed documents should have been packaged separately and failure to do so was security breach that had potential for significant damage to respondent’s reputation and to interests of clients – Respondent claimed recipients of documents entrusted respondent with highly confidential information and were top clients and therefore important to provide excellent service – Applicant invited to attend disciplinary meeting – Applicant issued with final warning to remain on personal file for duration of employment with respondent – Following mediation, respondent reconsidered duration of warning – Applicant informed warning would remain on personal file for 12 months – Authority found warning had potential to make employment less secure – Found no documented procedure at time of warning – Found new process relating to security checks introduced – Found applicant familiar with due process and knowledgeable of appropriate security measures for client documents – Found applicant reluctant to acknowledge any fault – Applicant claimed other employees treated differently in relation to security breaches – Found no disparity of treatment – Applicant claimed existence of warning would affect performance assessment and subsequent remuneration – Found issuing of final warning appropriate – Found imposition of warning of indefinite duration unjustified – Found duration of warning only reduced following mediation – Unjustified disadvantage – REMEDIES – Found applicant failed to provide evidence about affect of unjustified action – No remedies awarded – Found given substantial contribution by applicant any remedies that may have been awarded would have been minimal – Night Shift Supervisor/Shift Leader |
| Result | Application granted ; No remedies awarded ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103(1)(b);Employment Contracts Act 1991 |
| Cases Cited | Alliance Freezing Co (Southland) Ltd v NZ Engineering etc IUOW (1989) ERNZ Sel Cas 575;Matthes v New Zealand Post Ltd [1994] ERNZ 994;Rubie v Brambles New Zealand Limited t/a Recall New Zealand [2011] NZERA Auckland 63 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_87.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |