| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 83 |
| Hearing date | 7 Jul 2011 - 10 Aug 2011 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 02 March 2012 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | A Singh ; J Peebles |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Lloyd v Utility Installations Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – GOOD FAITH – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent and respondent breached good faith obligations – Applicant previously employed by respondent – Respondent owners took view that respondent should not employ applicant again – Respondent operations manager (“G”) rehired applicant – Applicant informed G that intended to travel to United States of America (“USA”) for three months but would be available for work upon return – Applicant claimed rang G numerous times but received no response – Applicant claimed implicitly told by G to find work with another company – G claimed told applicant that no position available due to recession – G claimed told applicant of other companies looking for workers with similar skills – Authority found most unlikely applicant genuinely believed given leave of absence as permanent employee for three months simply to travel to USA on holiday – Found more probable than not that when applicant left employment with respondent had no guarantee that would be re-employed by G – Found respondent substantially affected by economic downturn and some permanent staff were made redundant – Found G should have been more explicit about reality of situation before applicant departed for USA and should have recorded something in writing – Found applicant terminated for redundancy – Applicant claimed redundancy not genuine as not re-employed due to past differences with respondent owners – Found respondent not in financial position to re-employ applicant and hence genuine redundancy – Found applicant entitled to two weeks pay as standard notice period given by respondent in redundancy setting – Found nothing unfair or unreasonable about way applicant treated – Found respondent did not breach good faith obligations – Dismissal justified – PENALTY – Applicant claimed respondent failed to provide employment agreement – Found had respondent provided employment agreement many of issues that arose may have been avoided – $2,000 penalty appropriate |
| Result | Application granted (penalty) ; Penalty ($2,000)($1,000 payable to applicant)($1,000 payable to Crown) ; Reimbursement of notice period ($2,000) ; Applications dismissed (unjustified dismissal)(good faith) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s65 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_83.pdf [pdf 54 KB] |