| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 125 |
| Hearing date | 7 Mar 2012 |
| Determination date | 11 April 2012 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | H White ; D France |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Taia-Heka v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Whether grievance raised within 90 days – Respondent claimed applicant had not raised grievance – Applicant’s statement of problem referred to grievance – Authority found respondent gave implied consent to applicant raising personal grievance – Found grievance raised within 90 days -UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent denied applicant dismissed or made redundant – Respondent general manager (“G”) claimed respondent carried out restructure - Respondent discussed possible redundancy with applicant – G told applicant duties would be shared amongst several employees and some services would be automated - Applicant’s position disestablished - Applicant accepted new position on night shift – New position at lower hourly rate but night shift allowances meant not overall loss of pay - Applicant claimed previous role not made redundant and discovered another employee (“C”) carrying out majority of applicant’s previous duties – Parties agreed if applicant made redundant from new position in next five years redundancy compensation would be based on previous position hourly rate – Applicant’s representative told respondent applicant had accepted new position on without prejudice basis and respondent could not reduce basic hourly rate – Respondent told applicant did not accept without prejudice status and gave applicant week to consider if wanted new position on agreed terms – Applicant did not advise respondent no longer wanted new position – Union sent respondent letter that reduction in applicant’s salary breached parties’ collective employment agreement (“CEA”) and applicant agreed to terms under duress – Found applicant’s previous position no longer existed and respondent reallocated duties – Found applicant not made redundant – Found applicant’s hourly rate unaffected by CEA and parties’ agreement to alter applicant’s salary based on individual negotiations with respondent – Found respondent consulted with applicant and applicant had assistance of experienced union advocate during process – Found respondent did not apply undue influence or use duress when applicant accepted new position - No dismissal - Sample Maker |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s129(1) |
| Cases Cited | Phillips v Net Tel Communications Ltd [2002] 2 ERNZ 340 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_125.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |