Case review employment relations authority give useful guidance on raising a grievance and Teachers Council reporting

Sarah O’Brien of Fortune Manning Lawyers recently published an article on their website, on matters relating to guidance on raising a grievance and Teachers Council reporting. As she related, employers who have had the misfortune to have to dismiss an employee will be familiar with the tense countdown of 90 days, within which a personal grievance must be raised. For educational institutions the mandatory requirement to report to the Teachers Council can often inflame matters just as people might hope they are settling down.  Fortune Manning acted for the respondent in a recent case, and successfully sought for the issues to be dealt with on a preliminary basis on written submissions, so as to avoid the cost and inconvenience of a full investigation meeting in the Authority.

Without going into the full details of the case which, incidentally, can be found on their website, the Fortune Manning team argued for the respondent that the Authority's jurisdiction to make determinations about employment relationship problems did not extend to making a declaration in respect of whether a mandatory report made to the Teachers Council was justified or not.  The filing of the mandatory report is, it was argued, outside of the definition of "employment relationship problem".

The Authority member agreed with Fortune Manning’s submission and noted that there is nothing in the Education Act conferring on the Authority the right or duty to interfere in the performance of the statutory duty by which an educational institution is bound.  The Authority noted that while s161(1)(r) Employment Relations Act 2000 gives a broad remit to the Authority to make determinations about employment relationship problems generally, including any action "arising from or related to the employment relationship",  this did not give the Authority the power to comment on the exercise of a statutory duty by a party to an employment relationship.

As Sarah explained, “The applicant is challenging the determination in the Employment Court. However, the Authority’s comments, while non-binding in future cases, are a useful affirmation that the mandatory reporting regime stands outside of the employment relationship for the purposes of a claim to the Employment Relations Authority.  The decision is also a helpful reminder of the fact that a strongly worded resignation letter will not necessarily be sufficient to raise a personal grievance.”
For more information, please visit the website at http://www.fortunemanning.co.nz .