| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 22 |
| Hearing date | 17 Jan 2012 |
| Determination date | 09 February 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | M Round ; H van Schreven |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Dew v Ollivers Cafe Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed redundancy brought about by inability to continue employment as result of Christchurch earthquake – Earthquake severely affected both respondent caf�s with one still within red zone and other significantly damaged and yet to reopen – Respondent directors suffered severe financial difficulties resulting from no income – Respondent initially chose to try and retain staff who remained in Christchurch and relied on Government Earthquake Wage Subsidy – Text messages sent to employees to ascertain continued eligibility for subsidy and to keep staff informed about what was happening with business – Respondent directors decided to have more active role in caf� to be reopened so required less staff – Manager positions not required – Respondent director (“W”) claimed telephoned applicant and gave option of other employment including caf� in Nelson – W claimed applicant ignored options – Applicant claimed W suggested applicant hand in notice so holiday pay could tide applicant over until caf� reopened – Applicant denied alternate employment discussed – W claimed applicant abusive – Applicant denied swearing at W – W claimed applicant’s conduct evidence of complete breakdown of relationship – Applicant dismissed – Authority found circumstances entitled respondent to review staffing needs – Found all staff must be given fair opportunity for retention but did not happen – Found applicant selected for redundancy because of alleged behaviour over telephone – Found no consultation over selection process – Found choice made for disciplinary reason and made in heat of moment – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – 10 percent contributory conduct – Found applicant attempted to mitigate loss by actively seeking alternative employment – $2,250 reimbursement of lost wages appropriate – $900 compensation appropriate – ARREARS OF WAGES – Applicant claimed not paid for notice period – Respondent accepted payment not made and agreed to make payment forthwith – Authority ordered payment be made – Branch Manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Contributory conduct (10%) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($1,000 reduced to $900) ; Compensation ($2,500 reduced to $2,250) ; Arrears of wages (quantum to be determined) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s67A;ERA s103A;ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Kostic v Dodd unreported, Couch J, 11 July 2007, CC 14/07 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_22.pdf [pdf 54 KB] |