| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 67 |
| Hearing date | 5 Apr 2012 |
| Determination date | 17 April 2012 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | T Mackenzie ; S Townsend |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Humphries v Blue Star Taxis (Christchurch) Society Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority ordered non-publication of applicant’s medical information – Applicant claimed initially had good working relationships with colleagues but after change in respondent board of directors (“board”) relations with board and colleagues deteriorated – Applicant claimed board members would criticise applicant aware applicant could hear comments – Board chairman (“B”) sent applicant letter criticising applicant’s performance – Applicant claimed letter inaccurate and evidence of B’s hostility towards applicant – Applicant claimed respondent manager (“W”) told applicant should look for new job and leave respondent as soon as possible – W claimed aware applicant unhappy at respondent and only wanted to know if applicant wanted to continue working for respondent – Employee told applicant board had told employees applicant had left employment – W told applicant job safe – Applicant claimed discovered draft minutes from board meeting that board had moved disestablishment of applicant’s position – Applicant told few weeks later would be given pay rise and respondent secure financially – Applicant claimed bewildered and confused – Month later applicant told position would be disestablished as respondent had made significant loss – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed redundancy was sham – B claimed only decided to dismiss applicant after discovered respondent made significant loss – Respondent later employed salesperson – Authority found new salesperson role significantly different to applicant’s role – B claimed had no intention to dismiss applicant until discovered respondent financial position – Found respondent needed to make urgent savings and applicant redundancy genuine – Found respondent’s urgent need to make savings did not preclude respondent from consulting with applicant before made decision – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - Found redundancy genuine and reimbursement of lost wages not appropriate – Found appropriate to award applicant remedies for unjustified disadvantage rather than unjustified dismissal although applicant withdrew unjustified disadvantage claim - Found applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to consult with applicant – $10,000 compensation appropriate - Found applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by rumours about applicant’s dismissal before respondent made decision causing applicant considerable distress – Found further $10,000 compensation appropriate - PENALTY – GOOD FAITH - Parties’ employment agreement (“EA”) stated respondent would consult with applicant if position made redundant – Applicant sought penalty for respondent’s breach of EA – Found not appropriate to award penalty - No penalty – Applicant sought penalty for respondent’s failure to deal with applicant in good faith – Applicant requested any board minutes relating to redundancy – B claimed applicant not entitled to minutes – Found respondent acted in way likely to mislead or deceive applicant - Found respondent’s failure to disclose board minutes deliberate but not sustained – No penalty - Marketing Manager |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified dismissal and unjustfied disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000)(unjustified disadvantage relating to respondent failure to consult) ($10,000)(unjustified disadvantage relating to respondent conduct before dismissal) ; Applications dismissed (penalty and good faith) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4A;ERA s4(1);ERA s4(1A);ERA s103;ERA s103A(2);ERA s122;ERA s124;ERA s134(1);ERA s160(3) |
| Cases Cited | McGuire v Rubber Flooring (NZ) Ltd unreported, Travis J, 2 March 2006, AC9/06;Salt v Fell [2006] ERNZ 449;Simpson Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_67.pdf [pdf 74 KB] |