|
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Royal Puna & Anor v Haulage Transport Ltd
14 Feb 2008, J Crichton, WA 18/08, (7 pages)
RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Authority to determine whether all parts of grievance raised within 90 days – Matter originally dealt with by another Authority member (“A”) and directions issued to apply at substantive hearing – Respondent argued only matters capable of investigation were matters where grievance plainly raised within 90 days – Applicant argued plain words of directions notice 90 day issue resolved on basis grievances raised within 90 days – Subject to respondent raising substantive argument grievances out of time – Without notification to Authority or applicant, respondent’s advocate recorded telephone conference arranged by Authority – Respondent’s advocate sent transcript of recording to Authority – Authority found respondent’s advocates actions in recording telephone conference without notifying Authority or opposing representative surreptitious, discourteous, and breached proper processes – Authority noted if recording had happened in context of Court proceedings would in principle be contempt of Court and punishable accordingly – Applicants submitted proceeded on basis notified respondent of grievances albeit notification informal – Applicants also argued 90 day period ran from point became aware had personal grievance – Applicants argued effect of A’s direction was that applicant had prima facie raised grievance within 90 day period and available for respondent to raise substantive argument claims outside 90 day period – Respondent accepted certain allegations raised in time but not others – Respondent resisted applicant’s argument that had to raise substantive argument – Respondent argued enough to simply argue claims outside 90 day period and maintain position during course of investigation meeting – Authority found not enough for applicant to simply complain about matter in workplace and say complaint itself constituted raising grievance – Found employee to make clear to employer matter taken seriously as to constitute in employees mind personal grievance and employer in no doubt matter to be addressed or face legal consequences – Authority not persuaded majority of claims notified to respondent – Authority concluded while had no doubt applicants genuinely aggrieved by issues with respondent steps taken did not legally constitute raising personal grievance – Authority noted for applicants to take problem further would need to seek leave pursuant to s114(4) Employment Relations Act 2000 – Authority did not accept applicant’s argument 90 day period ran from when applicant became aware had personal grievance – Authority also rejected applicant’s argument that respondent required to make substantive application – Authority found only matters where personal grievance properly raised for both applicants related to lack of confidentiality of wage records and alleged inducement to leave employment
Result: Application dismissed ; No order for costs
Williams v PPCS Belfast
20 Feb 2008, J Crichton, CA 17/08, (4 pages)
RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Application to raise personal grievance out of time – Applicant dismissed for serious misconduct – During disciplinary investigation, applicant aided by union official – After dismissal applicant instructed counsel who exchanged information with respondent regarding dismissal but did not raise grievance – One month after dismissal applicant imprisoned for unrelated offences – Shortly after 90 day period expired, dismissal grievance raised with respondent – Authority found clear breakdown in communication between applicant and counsel around time of incarceration – Found incarceration did not constitute exceptional circumstances – Found applicant had opportunity to raise grievance before incarceration, because had assistance of union official then legal counsel, and one month passed between dismissal and incarceration – Found even when imprisoned, applicant not precluded from meeting with counsel regarding grievance – Authority noted conclusion not based on further eight month delay due to illness of counsel between notification of grievance and filing in Authority – Application for leave to raise grievance out of time declined – Costs to lie where they fall
Result: Application dismissed ; Costs to lie where they fall
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
|
