| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 112 |
| Hearing date | 15 Dec 2011 |
| Determination date | 12 June 2012 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | J Goldstein ; A Rooney |
| Parties | Watkins v Canterbury District Health Board |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decision not to redeploy applicant to alternative position – Authority found respondent could not fail to redeploy applicant without giving applicant access to relevant material including interview questions, competencies, scores and notes – Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decision not to redeploy applicant to alternative position – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - $5,000 compensation appropriate – BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant claimed respondent’s decision not to redeploy applicant to alternative position breach of employment agreement (“EA”) – Found applicant not entitled to be redeployed to alternative position – No breach of EA – Personal assistant |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as personal assistant. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent’s decision not to redeploy applicant to alternative position. Applicant claimed respondent’s decision not to redeploy applicant to alternative position breached employment agreement (“EA”). Respondent decided to disestablish applicant’s position and create three part time positions. Applicant sought redeployment to vacant full time position. Respondent declined to redeploy applicant. Applicant applied for position and was interviewed but respondent declined to appoint applicant despite applicant being only remaining candidate. Applicant claimed respondent should have assessed whether applicant had skills and attributes to perform position rather than whether applicant good fit for position. Applicant claimed interview not conducted in fair and reasonable manner.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Authority noted delay in issuing determination due to Christchurch earthquake. Applicant’s employment disadvantaged by respondent’s decision not to redeploy applicant as applicant’s prospects of continued employment with respondent lessened. Respondent concluded applicant did not have skills and attributes to perform position. Interview conducted in fair and reasonable manner. Respondent could not fail to redeploy applicant without giving applicant access to relevant material including interview questions, competencies, scores and notes. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decision not to redeploy applicant to alternative position. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $5,000 compensation appropriate.;BREACH OF CONTRACT: Reasonable for respondent to conclude applicant not suitable for alternative position. Applicant not entitled to be redeployed to alternative position. No breach of EA. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage); $5,000 compensation for humiliation etc; Application dismissed (breach of contract); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s3;ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s103(3);ERA s103A;ERA s103A(1);ERA s103A(2);ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(5);Human Rights Act 1993 s21(1)(k) |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (2011) 9 NZELC 94,015;Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd (No 2) (2011) 9 NZELC 93,655;New Zealand Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites [2000] 1 ERNZ 739; [2000] 2 NZLR 565;Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley (2011) 9 NZELC 93,782;Sanders v Ingham Motor Holdings Ltd [2011] NZERA Auckland 328;Wang v Hamilton Multicultural Services Trust [2010] ERNZ 468 |
| Number of Pages | 21 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_112.pdf [pdf 189 KB] |