| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 95 |
| Hearing date | 27 Apr 2012 |
| Determination date | 21 May 2012 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | M Dennehy (in person) ; J Jones |
| Location | Hokitika |
| Parties | Dennehy v Kershevin Farms Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Authority found genuine redundancy situation - Found one month's notice reasonable in circumstances - Found respondent should have consulted with applicant - Dismissal unjustified - REMEDIES - No contributory conduct - $4,000 compensation appropriate |
| Abstract | Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent when employment terminated after respondent sold farm applicant worked on. Respondent provided applicant with accommodation on farm during employment. Applicant claimed entitled to stay on farm and in accommodation until dairy season ended six months after notice expired. Applicant disputed whether sale of farm genuine. Respondent claimed one month's notice reasonable and usual dairy farm practice. Respondent claimed parties had not discussed reasonable notice period if farm sold.;AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: On balance of probabilities respondent entered into oral lease-to-buy arrangement with third party. Genuine redundancy situation. No evidence that parties agreed that applicant employed on fixed term basis or parties intended that the arrangement could not be terminated before end of season. In circumstances, one month's notice reasonable. Although applicant likely to have always known farm was for sale, respondent should have consulted with applicant when entered into lease-to-buy arrangement. Authority ordered non-publication of financial details of sale of respondent's farm. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Consultation however unlikely to have affected respondent's decision to sell farm. Reimbursement of lost wages not appropriate. $4,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A;ERA s124;Residential Tenancies Act 1986 s53 |
| Cases Cited | Charta Packaging Ltd v Howard [2002] 1 ERNZ 10;GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington Caretakers IUOW (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843 ; [1991] 1 NZLR 151;Kitchen Pak Distribution Ltd v Stoks [1993] 2 ERNZ 401;McGuire v Rubber Flooring (NZ) Ltd unreported, Travis J, 2 March 2006, AC 9/06;NZ Building Trades Union v Hawke's Bay Area Health Board [1992] 2 ERNZ 897;New Zealand Nurses Union v Air New Zealand Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 548;Ogilvy & Mather (New Zealand) Ltd v Turner [1995] 2 ERNZ 398 ; [1996] 1 NZLR 641;Simpsons Farm Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_95.pdf [pdf 46 KB] |