| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 42 |
| Hearing date | 26 Oct 2011 |
| Determination date | 07 March 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | G Lloyd ; T Cleary |
| Location | Blenheim |
| Parties | Bainbridge v Safe Air Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – GOOD FAITH – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by respondent and respondent breached good faith obligations – Respondent implemented restructure because of significant financial losses – Respondent reduced clerical positions from two to one – Applicant did not obtain clerical position or new role at respondent – Applicant paid redundancy compensation upon termination of employment – Applicant claimed not employed as data integrity clerk but in another role – Authority found title of applicant’s role not important – Applicant made numerous complaints to respondent that deprived of opportunity to perform work at appropriate level prior to restructure – Respondent never accepted applicant’s complaints – Found applicant’s concerns not satisfactory addressed – Found residual concern that when restructure took effect applicant disadvantaged because other employee had more current experience in developing skill set for new role than applicant – Applicant claimed assessment prejudiced because respondent never effectively dealt with complaints that was bullied by supervisors – Respondent denied applicant bullied – Found number of people believed applicant bullied – Found evidence suggested proper inquiries may not have been made by respondent and raised spectre of prejudicial assessment of applicant – Found respondent had to ensure that selection process did not automatically favour one incumbent over the other – Found combination of involvement of managers who had issues with applicant in past together with factor that applicant appeared to have been deprived of range of work that was available to colleague put whole process in jeopardy – Found more likely than not applicant’s complaints about nature and extent of role asked to perform had credence – Found decision not to appoint applicant unjust – Found while respondent consulted adequately with union at macro level did not consult at micro level with affected staff – Found respondent’s failure to give applicant opportunity to review score once results of skills matrix emerged and to comment on likely redundancy failed to meet good faith obligations – Found matrix score more like proposal than final decision – Found paucity of information provided by respondent ensured no real opportunity to comment and so engagement of applicant in process unreasonably truncated – Found redundancy genuine – Found respondent breached good faith obligations – Found disadvantage grievance not made out as separate head from dismissal claim – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Found no reimbursement of lost wages as did not arise from circumstances giving rise to grievance – $5,000 compensation appropriate |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified dismissal)(good faith) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Application dismissed (unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Cammish v Parliamentary Service [1996] ERNZ 404;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825;Waines v Karamea Information & Resource Centre Inc [2011] NZERA Christchurch 143;Wrigley v Massey University [2011] NZEmpC 37 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_42.pdf [pdf 74 KB] |