| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 426 |
| Hearing date | 29 Jun 2011 - 19 Jul 2011 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 30 September 2011 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | J Dewar ; P Churchman |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Yu v The Commissioner of Police |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Applicant claimed raised grievance in letters sent to respondent Conduct Manager (“M”) – Respondent claimed first letter did not raise grievance and second letter out of time – Respondent claimed letters did not mention unfair treatment at Police College – Authority found as applicant still employed by respondent employment relationship problem ongoing and not out of time – Found applicant’s concerns about treatment at Police College not raised in time and could not be addressed as stand alone grievances – However, found relevant in considering other grievances – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant participated in recruit training but due to allegation of cheating not permitted to graduate – Respondent Human Resources Director decided applicant’s conduct showed applicant not ready to take up duties of police officer and requiring applicant to repeat course was most practical solution – Respondent claimed applicant agreed to undertake second training programme including assessments – Applicant claimed returned to Police College to attend refresher course not qualifying course as had already passed assessments – Applicant did not discuss proposal with any representative of respondent – Applicant claimed would not have agreed to proposal with requirement to pass assessments – Applicant claimed employment governed by original employment agreement – Found applicant’s terms and conditions subject to modifications pursuant to agreement to repeat course – Found agreement had to be construed to mean that applicant would repeat all aspects of recruit training including assessments – Applicant claimed unfairly rebuked by instructor for looking at someone else’s computer screen and failing to report in – Applicant claimed subject to unfair comments in class by instructor about what reference material was permitted – Respondent Senior Sergeant apologised to applicant for incident – Applicant did not make any formal complaint at time of incidents – Applicant consistently failed one critical assessment – Found applicant not subjected to unfair treatment – Found no evidence of any unfairness arising out of assessment process – Found applicant given fair and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate capability of exercising powers of constable – No disadvantage – No breach of contract – GOOD FAITH – M accepted failed to address some issues raised by applicant – Found M’s conduct not good practice but did not amount to breach of good faith and no prejudice to applicant’s position as result – Applicant claimed should have been redeployed to non-sworn role rather than have to submit to contestable process after left Police College – Respondent claimed entitled to expect applicant to go through normal interview and appointment process – Found no argument provided as to why respondent’s approach unreasonable – No breach of good faith – Police Recruit |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Policing Act 2008 s22 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_426.pdf [pdf 68 KB] |