| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 149 |
| Determination date | 12 April 2011 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | R Young (in person) ; G Bingham |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Young v Bay of Plenty District Health Board |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether applicant’s personal grievance claim could proceed - Applicant lodged statement of problem alleging matters arising out of disclosure made under Protected Disclosures Act 2000 not resolved – Applicant alleged as result was unjustifiably constructively dismissed – Applicant sought reinstatement - Authority found Authority had previously investigated applicant’s dismissal and found it justified – Found substantive determination was subject of unsuccessful attempt made out of time to pursue challenge in Employment Court – Applicant filed current proceedings about seven weeks after Court issued judgment - Authority found applicant not dismissed, constructively or otherwise, because made protected disclosure – Found applicant dismissed for serious misconduct – Found not open to applicant to assert new personal grievance at such late stage and in manner did – Found justification for dismissal already heard and determined – Found applicant had opportunity and did raise concerns about relevance of making protected disclosure during disciplinary process – Found just because applicant dissatisfied with response did not mean open to him to create entirely new allegation of unjustified dismissal in further attempt to obtain response wanted – Found not appropriate to grant leave for applicant to proceed with claim - Application declined – No order for reinstatement - Application for stay of costs – Applicant applied for stay of costs on grounds stay of costs in respect of substantive determination would be fair because of relationship between matters addressed in it and protected disclosure – Applicant suggested that as was taking on large government department, cost should not be consideration in seeking justice – Applicant also summarised current financial position – Authority found as would be no investigation into further personal grievance claim in respect of protected disclosure, no reason to consider granting stay - Application declined |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | Protected Disclosures Act 2000 |
| Cases Cited | Young v Bay of Plenty District Health Board unreported, K J Anderson, 26 Mar 2010, AA 146/10;Young v Bay of Plenty District Health Board unreported, K Anderson, 22 Jun 2010, AA 146A/10;Young v Bay of Plenty District Health Board unreported, K Anderson, 16 Jul 2010, AA 146B/10;Young v Bay of Plenty District Health Board [2010] NZEMPC 145 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_149.pdf [pdf 20 KB] |