| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 409 |
| Determination date | 19 September 2011 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | K Single ; P McBride |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Barker v Idea Services Ltd (in statutory management) |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Whether grievance raised within 90 days – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed raised grievance in time through Service and Food Workers Union Organiser’s (“S”) verbal statement, letter from S and letter from Employment Relations Centre Ltd (“E”) – Respondent claimed S’s verbal statement was insufficient to raise grievance as no dismissal had occurred at that point – Respondent service manager (“H”) and area manager (“T”) claimed S provided no details as to substance of grievance or what remedies applicant would be seeking – Authority found applicant dismissed at time S made verbal statement – Found verbal statement was insufficient to make respondent sufficiently aware of nature of grievance or remedies for resolving grievance – Found if submission document had been provided in conjunction with S’s letter then together they would constitute raising grievance – H and T accepted received S’s letter but denied there were any enclosures to it – Found no evidence that S posted submission document with letter and letter itself made no reference to enclosures – Found although S’s letter referred to grievance and cited sections of Employment Relations Act 2000 it was insufficient without supportive details to constitute raising grievance – Found E’s letter made no reference to grievance related to dismissal of applicant or to method of resolving grievance – Found E’s letter did not sufficiently specify grievance such as to enable respondent to address it – Found reasonable to expect respondent to have responded to letters by requesting specific details if unsure of nature of grievance – Found on basis of totality of communications between parties applicant had sufficiently specified grievance to enable respondent to address it – Found grievance raised within 90 days – Community Support Worker |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s114;ERA s114(2) |
| Cases Cited | Board of Trustees of Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake O Tawhiuau v Edmonds [2008] ERNZ 139;Candle New Zealand Ltd v Riley [1999] ERNZ 251;Coy v Police unreported, Colgan CJ, 19 November 2007, CC 23/07;Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] ERNZ 517;Liumaihetau v Alterm East Auckland Ltd [1994] ERNZ 958;Melville v Air New Zealand Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 87;Winstone Wallboards Ltd v Samate [1993] ERNZ 503 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_409.pdf [pdf 34 KB] |