| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 10 |
| Hearing date | 29 Nov 2011 |
| Determination date | 13 January 2012 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | B Quarrie ; A Schirnak |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Lakin v Cheif Executive Officer Far North District Council |
| Summary | ARREARS OF REDUNDANCY COMPENSATION – Applicant claimed owed redundancy compensation – Respondent denied applicant owed redundancy compensation because applicant’s employment terminated at applicant’s initiative – Applicant accepted variation to employment agreement (“EA”) that allowed applicant to work three days per week from home – Respondent manager (“A”) told applicant of possibility of organisational restructuring and that respondent Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) sought to revoke policies allowing employees to work – A and respondent manager (“B”) asked applicant to work at respondent offices instead of home – Applicant declined as arrangement did not suit family circumstances – CEO issued directive that all employees had to work from office – Applicant attended meeting with A and B to discuss place of work arrangement – Applicant claimed informed by B and A that directive over-rode applicant’s variation to place of work arrangement – B and A claimed accepted variation was binding – Applicant claimed was required to work from office which was fundamental change to terms of employment and triggered redundancy provisions of EA – Respondent human resources manager (“E”) told applicant that respondent wanted to continue existing place of work arrangement – Applicant replied that existing role was coming to end for redundancy – Authority found CEO intended to terminate all working from home arrangements but did not advise managers to over-ride existing terms and conditions of employment – Found second attempt by B and A to secure agreement with applicant over place of work arrangement did not amount to undue pressure – Found circumstances did not amount to unequivocal notification of termination of applicant’s employment – Found applicant’s confirmation that did not agree to change to place of work did not mean applicant effectively or automatically became redundant – Found to extent it was arguable that applicant’s position had become superfluous to respondent’s needs the withdrawal of request to change place of work meant that was no longer the case – Found applicant’s employment terminated at applicant’s initiative – No arrears of redundancy compensation – Strategic On-line Projects Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Arrears |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_10.pdf [pdf 45 KB] |