Former police worker received $ 20,000 in employment case

The Labor Relations Authority awarded $ 20,000 to a former police employee who discovered that he was at an unjustified disadvantage.

Melissa Jean Opai started working for the police in August 2005 and claimed that her employer was unfairly harming her after her position as a guardhouse officer was restored in 2014.

Opai also claimed that his 2014/2015 performance appraisal was mistreated by police, and his supervisor had posed poor performance issues at a meeting in 2015.

She claimed that together these complaints hurt her job.

But the police denied this and argued that even if Opai was at a disadvantage, it was justified because a restructuring of the public counter resulted in the reinstatement of its position in a procedurally fair manner.

She also said that her performance evaluation was not detrimental to her and that the Opai supervisor was justified in discussing her performance concerns informally.

The ERA found that Opai was successful with two of its three unwarranted disadvantage claims. She failed in her claim of unwarranted disadvantage regarding the reinstatement of her role as a guardhouse officer as a result of the 2014 restructuring.

The authority determined that the destabilization of their position had been done in a “procedurally fair manner” and that the police had genuine reasons based on reasonable grounds for doing so.

READ MORE:
• ‘Ratbags and renegades’: Police Minister Stuart Nash criticizes the illegal obstacles of the Mongrel Mob
• A man shot to death by police fought with his brother over Fiji’s property shortly before the Papatoetoe machete rampage
• Missing French teenager in Auckland: an object of interest was found, police search the bush area
• Police raids in West Auckland, net methamphetamine, cash, weapons, ammunition

But he discovered that Opai was unreasonably disadvantaged at his meeting with Sergeant Major Mullin on March 3, 2015.

“The performance concerns she raised, the way she did it and her advice to her that the next step was a formal performance improvement plan, was not what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all circumstances. “said the authority.

“The police should have taken appropriate steps to investigate the factual basis of Sergeant Major Mullin’s performance concerns, to determine whether they were fair and reasonable to the extent that it was appropriate for him to have advised Ms. Opai that the ‘next step’ would be a formal process. That did not happen, which was unfair to Ms. Opai. “

He was also successful in his complaint about police handling of his 2014/2015 performance evaluation.

“He was left without a final performance evaluation for the 2012/2013, 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 performance years. His specific concerns were not adequately investigated or addressed.”

Through humiliation, loss of dignity, and damage to her feelings, ERA discovered that Opai was entitled to compensation of $ 20,000.

Her health was significantly affected after she subjectively believed that the police wanted to remove her from her job.

Her unwarranted disadvantages played out with her worst fears that the police would attack her inappropriately and increased her sense of grievance towards the police, the ruling said.

Opai said she was also psychologically affected after a March 3 meeting with Mullin about her performance, and the way she had been treated by Mullin created esteem issues for her and destroyed her passion for the job.

In early 2012 and 2013, Opai had raised various concerns and filed formal complaints against five of his colleagues.

She initiated a defamation process against Sergeant Major Laurie Culpan and the Attorney General regarding Culpan’s comments on her in a performance review, briefing paper, complaint about her, and in newspaper notes in 2013.

However, he was unsuccessful in his claims, so he initially sought $ 280,000 in aggravated damages from Culpan.

Then, in 2013, he was the subject of a complaint, Opai’s claims against the police about this were unsuccessful. He also sought the same amount and more damages from the Attorney General for “indirect” defamation.

The Superior Court dismissed the case against Culpan and awarded him costs of more than $ 25,000.

The ERA said: “These issues are established to demonstrate that there has been a long history of issues related to these parts before the current downside complaints arose.”