| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 94 |
| Hearing date | 8 Dec 2012 |
| Determination date | 14 March 2012 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | L Shi (in person) ; R Harrison |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Shi v Les Mills Auckland Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent considered moving cleaning requirements to another company (“OCS”) – Respondent invited staff to meeting about proposal and told could transfer to OCS – No feedback received about proposal – Applicant claimed no staff wanted to transfer to OCS – No staff expressed interest in working for OCS – Operations Manager for OCS (“S”) claimed spoke to applicant about pay rate because wanted to retain applicant – Applicant claimed conversation with S never took place – Authority preferred S’s evidence – Applicant dismissed – Respondent asked OCS if still willing to offer applicant position – S confirmed offer still open – Authority found staff aware could transfer to OCS but full scope of legal obligations of existing employer and OCS not conveyed to staff – Found applicant wanted to continue to work for respondent but formed unfavourable views about OCS – Found applicant rejected offer to work for OCS at same pay rate on two occasions – Applicant did not seek penalty for breach of s69G Employment Relations Act 2000 – Dismissal justified – Found respondent entitled to view that business could be run more efficiently with OCS – Found consultation period not long but no submissions made about proposal or request for extension of time to consider matter – Cleaner |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s69A;ERA s69G;ERA s69I |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_94.pdf [pdf 22 KB] |