| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 131 |
| Hearing date | 29 Jun 2011 |
| Determination date | 09 September 2011 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | P Yarrall ; N Jones |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Munday and Ors v New Zealand Post Ltd |
| Other Parties | Griffiths, Redi-Davies, Wilkie, McLean |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicants claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by written warnings and sought to have warnings removed from applicants’ files – Applicants issued with written warning after refused to follow respondent’s instructions to perform “cut-up” work – “Cut-up” work was additional work as well as usual work performed by applicants – Authority previously determined union’s application regarding same warnings and found respondent’s instructions to perform “cut-up” work lawful and reasonable – Respondent claimed Authority’s previous determination only dealt with lawfulness issue and only limited evidence given – Parties agreed Authority would only hear from two applicants – Investigation meeting delayed by Christchurch earthquake and warnings expired before meeting rescheduled – Found justification of respondent’s written warnings not directly at issue, not determined in previous determination and applicants not named as parties – Applicants part of team that refused to do “cut-up” work as instructed – All team members separately instructed to perform “cut-up” work and still refused - Respondent issued disciplinary letters inviting applicants to disciplinary meeting – Applicants failed to attend meeting and second disciplinary letter sent – Both letters set out allegation that applicants had failed to follow reasonable instructions and carry out duties as directed and could amount to minor misconduct under collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Union lodged application at Authority same day and respondent agreed to postpone disciplinary investigation until mediation attempted – Respondent sent applicants third disciplinary letter recommending applicants bring support person to meeting – All applicants attended disciplinary meeting, brought support person or union delegate and process in accordance with CEA – Respondent’s delivery group leader (“O”) was decision maker and present at all meetings – Respondent initially appointed applicants’ team leader (“B”) as decision maker but replaced with O after concerns about B’s suitability – Parties discussed at meetings that if B had talked to applicants’ team when “cut-up” questioned and workload assessed would have resolved matter – B claimed believed whole of respondent’s branch had refused to participate in “cut-up” and concluded not practical to assess workloads individually – All meetings discussed respondent’s general manager’s (“R”) memo to union secretary that set out action that could be taken if employees felt were performing “cut-ups” regularly – Three applicants claimed refusal was reasonable - One applicant claimed had no option but to refuse - One applicant claimed was unsure if could refuse work but decided to on union advice after no answer from B - O claimed applicants’ refusal had breached CEA as failed to follow respondent’s fair and reasonable directive and process set out in R’s memo not followed – Respondent held further meetings with applicants to outline O’s findings and all given opportunity for further comment – Applicants advised respondent would issue written warning – Applicants claimed respondent should have waited until Authority’s previous investigation meeting began – O claimed decided not to wait due to delay and gave written warnings in accordance with CEA - Found applicants incorrectly believed had right to refuse “cut-up” work – Found respondent’s disciplinary process fair and reasonable – Found respondent’s decision not to wait for Authority’s previous investigation meeting did not mean written warnings unjustified and Authority previously found was lawful and reasonable request – Found likely union’s advice did not influence most of applicants in decision to refuse work – Found respondent’s issue of written warnings to applicants fair and reasonable in all circumstances - Postal Workers |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Alliance Freezing Co (Southland) Ltd v New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering and Related Trades IUOW [1989] ERNZ Sel Cas 575;Sky Network Television Ltd v Duncan [1998] 3 ERNZ 917;The Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa v New Zealand Post Ltd unreported, J Crichton, 8 October 2010, CA 191/10 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_131.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |