| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 88 |
| Determination date | 10 May 2012 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | C Abaffy, G Lloyd ; S Wilson |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Summers V Nelson Pine Industries Ltd and ors |
| Other Parties | Connelly, Regan, Barnes, Benton, Christall, Steel |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicants (S, C, R, B, T and E) claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found not open to respondent to use applicants’ attendance records in selecting redundant employees – Found respondent should have allowed applicants to comment on assessment of applicants relative to other employees – Found respondent predetermined outcome – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - $17,500 compensation appropriate (S) – Reimbursement of lost wages (quantum to be determined)(C) - $10,000 compensation appropriate (C, R, B, T and E) |
| Abstract | Applicants (“S”, “C”, “R”, “B”, “T” and “E”) employed by respondent at wood processing plant. Respondent needed to reduce costs. Respondent considered variety of options and decided to reduce number of employees. Respondent ranked employees across criteria to determine employees to be made redundant. Respondent met employees and announced selection of redundant employees to be made on basis of job knowledge, skills, efficiency and effectiveness. Respondent also assessed employees in some teams based on attendance records but did not inform employees. Respondent did not reveal lists to employees. Respondent informed employees to be offered continuing employment first with employees made redundant informed last. Applicants dismissed. Applicants claimed dismissal unjustifiable.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority noted delay in issuing determination due to Canterbury earthquake. Applicants dismissed due to genuine redundancy situation. Not open to respondent under collective employment agreement (“CEA”) to use applicants’ attendance record as criterion in selecting employees to be made redundant. Respondent mislead employees by saying criteria specified in CEA would be applied without mentioning attendance records. Respondent should have provided applicants with information about applicants’ rankings relative to other employees and opportunity for applicants to comment on respondent’s assessment. Respondent’s position largely predetermined as decision to restructure and selection of redundant employees substantially completed prior to announcement of proposal to employees. Fair and reasonable for respondent to inform redundant employees of outcome after employees offered continuing employment. Dismissals unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct by applicants. If attendance record discounted, S would still have been made redundant. No reimbursement of lost wages but $17,500 compensation appropriate for S. If attendance record discounted, C would not have been made redundant. Redundancy compensation paid by respondent not to be set off against lost remuneration. Reimbursement of lost wages (parties to determine quantum) and $10,000 compensation appropriate for C. If attendance record discounted, R, B and T would still have been made redundant. No reimbursement of lost wages but $10,000 compensation each appropriate for R, B and T. E’s attendance record not considered by respondent. No reimbursement of lost wages but $10,000 compensation appropriate for E. |
| Result | Applications successful; $17,500 compensation for humiliation etc (S); Reimbursement of lost wages (quantum to be determined) (C); $10,000 compensation for humiliation etc (C, R, B, T and E); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s3;ERA s4;ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s4(1B);ERA s4(1C);ERA s103A;ERA s128(2) |
| Cases Cited | Aoraki Corp Ltd v McGavin [1998] 1 ERNZ 601; [1998] 3 NZLR 276;Cammish v Parliamentary Service [1996] 1 ERNZ 404;Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd (No 2) (2011) 9 NZELC 93,655;Mid Central Health Ltd v Drummond [1998] 1 ERNZ 408;Muru v Coal Corp of NZ Ltd (1997) 5 NZELC 98,452;New Zealand Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites [1998] 3 ERNZ 894;New Zealand Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites [2000] 1 ERNZ 739; [2000] 2 NZLR 565;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825;Queenstown Lakes District Council v Edmondson (1995) 4 NZELC 98,324;Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley (2011) 9 NZELC 93,782;Wallace Corp Ltd v Paalvast unreported, Colgan J, 22 November 1999, AC94/99 |
| Number of Pages | 31 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_88.pdf [pdf 281 KB] |