| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Wellington 54 |
| Determination date | 08 April 2011 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | E Briggs ; E Child |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Houston v Attorney-General in respect of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Whether grievance raised within 90 days – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged and dismissed by respondent – Applicant diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder following violent hostage situation with client – Recommendations made about applicant’s supervision at work – A further violent incident occurred and applicant began taking increasing periods of sick leave – Applicant attributed illness and inability to work to respondent – Respondent denied liability for applicant’s illness and inability to work – Psychologist identified respondent’s treatment of applicant contributed to serious deterioration of applicant’s condition – Respondent claimed actively engaged with applicant in respect of illness – Medical case conference recommended applicant not return to work – Respondent gave applicant notice of medical retirement – Applicant claimed respondent failed to provide safe workplace – Applicant claimed respondent failed to follow fair process and failed to consider alternatives to dismissal – Applicant claimed delay in proceedings beyond control – Applicant alternatively claimed post traumatic stress disorder relevant factor in delay – Applicant claimed respondent not seriously prejudiced by delay as aware of issues since claim first raised – Applicant claimed in interests of justice that application should proceed as otherwise respondent would benefit from problem created – Respondent claimed conducted exhaustive process before terminating applicant’s employment and provided generous assistance – Respondent claimed provided applicant with contractual notice period for termination plus additional two months’ notice, annual leave which had accrued while applicant on sick leave, retiring leave, legal costs and continued medical, rehabilitation and vocational support – Respondent claimed termination only reasonable option – Respondent claimed grievance raised out of time – Respondent claimed full and fair hearing impossible due to passage of time and in public interest to end litigation – Respondent claimed decision to dismiss six years old – Respondent claimed substantive events leading to dismissal reached back 16 years – Respondent claimed proceedings filed more than four years ago – Authority found grievance clearly raised and stated as unjustified dismissal in letter dated three months following notice of dismissal – Respondent sought proceedings to be struck out due to delay – Found delay considerable but not excessive – Found delay excusable and largely beyond applicant’s control as applicant had difficulty securing and retaining legal representation – Found respondent not seriously prejudiced by delay because discovery process nearly complete – Found scope needed to be clarified – Matter to proceed to substantive hearing – Social Worker |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s114;ERA s114(1) |
| Cases Cited | Commerce Commission v Giltrap City Limited (1997) 11 PRNZ 573;Lovie v Medical Assurance Society New Zealand Limited [1992] 2 NZLR 244;Waikato District Health Board v Clear [2010] NZCA 305 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Wellington_54.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |