| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 174 |
| Hearing date | 9 Apr 2012 |
| Determination date | 22 May 2012 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | P Vlug (in person) ; M Quigg |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Vlug v Asnet Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent presented restructuring proposal to employees and set out reasons for restructure – Applicant’s position affected – Applicant met with respondent’s managing director (“H”) following day – Applicant told H had not considered proposal – H granted applicant extension on deadline for staff to provide comments on restructuring proposal – Applicant and H arranged new meeting, but applicant’s support person unable to attend and H agreed to change meeting to following day at short notice – Applicant told H that would not be applying for one of new positions created in restructure and that applicant wanted current position to continue unchanged – Five days later H told applicant respondent proceeding with restructure and applicant’s position redundant – Respondent unable to find alternative redeployment opportunities for applicant given applicant’s decision not to apply for new positions – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed restructure not genuine – Applicant claimed new position same as applicant’s position – Applicant claimed restructuring manufactured to enable H to obtain management of lucrative account – Applicant claimed respondent’s restructuring process unfair – Authority found restructuring undertaken for genuine commercial reasons – Found new position had different focus to applicant’s position – Found applicant enjoyed commission payments managing lucrative contract in current position – Found new position not substantially similar to applicant’s position – Found restructure not manufactured to enable H to obtain management of lucrative account as H did not manage account following restructure – Found respondent provided applicant ample time for feedback and to ask questions, and adjourned planned meeting at short notice to accommodate applicant’s support person – Found respondent followed fair procedure – Dismissal justified – Sales executive |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | G N Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington etc Caretakers etc IUOW (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843; [1991] 1 NZLR 151;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_174.pdf [pdf 48 KB] |