| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 109 |
| Hearing date | 12 Apr 2011 |
| Determination date | 01 June 2012 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | G Nation, S Waggott ; P Shaw |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Dallimore v Wholsale Buying Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions – Authority found respondent breached obligation to consider redeploying applicant to part-time position by deciding to advertise part-time positions – Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decision to advertise part-time positions – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Respondent to pay applicant reimbursement of lost wages, parties to determine quantum - $7,500 compensation appropriate – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Found respondent’s decision not predetermined and applicant consulted properly about restructure – Found redundancy genuine – Dismissal justified – Member services assistant |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as member services assistant. Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Respondent proposed to split applicant’s position into two part-time positions. Respondent told applicant part-time positions would be advertised. Respondent proceeded with restructure despite applicant’s opposition. Respondent told applicant applicant’s role disestablished but applicant not dismissed and encouraged to express interest in other roles. Applicant refused to seek part-time role. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed respondent’s decision predetermined and no genuine redundancy as applicant’s work still performed. Applicant claimed respondent failed to consider alternative redeployment options.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Authority noted delay in issuing determination due to Christchurch earthquake. Respondent breached contractual obligation to consider redeploying applicant to part-time position by deciding to advertise part-time positions. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decision to advertise part-time positions. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant reimbursement of lost wages, parties to determine quantum. $7,500 compensation appropriate. UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent’s decision not predetermined and applicant consulted properly about restructure. Redundancy genuine as new part-time positions different to applicant’s position. Applicant made clear not interested in part-time position and respondent could not explore redeployment further. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage); Reimbursement of lost wages (parties to determine quantum); Compensation for humiliation etc ($7,500); Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Clerical and Office Staff Employees’ IUOW v Puhi Nui Motel [1981] ACJ 97;Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd (2011) 9 NZELC 93,655;McCulloch v New Zealand Fire Service Commission [1998] 3 ERNZ 378;New Zealand Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites [2000] 1 ERNZ 739; [2000] 2 NZLR 565;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825;Wang v Hamilton Multicultural Services Trust [2010] ERNZ 468;Westpac Banking Corp v Stephen [2000] 1 ERNZ 566;Wilkinson v Wairarapa Crown Health Enterprise Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 133 |
| Number of Pages | 18 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_109.pdf [pdf 89 KB] |