| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 118 |
| Hearing date | 31 Aug 2011 |
| Determination date | 13 June 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | S Moss ; P Zwart |
| Location | Blenheim |
| Parties | Hynes v The Home Centre Ltd t/a Marlborough Mite 10 Mega |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Authority found applicant's redundancy genuine -Consultation process adequate - Applicant chose not to participate in consultation and sought immediate decision from respondent -Selection process fair. |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as sales assistant. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Respondent experienced sales downtown, and decided to reduce staff numbers. Applicant received letter from respondent outlining situation and proposing meeting next day. Applicant unable to find representation but attended meeting anyway. Respondent explained to applicant that performance to be reviewed by three reviewers then decision made. Applicant sought decision from respondent day after meeting, respondent informed applicant that applicant's position made redundant. Applicant claimed consultation inadequate and notice period deficient. Applicant claimed outcome of consultation pre-determined. Applicant claimed selection process unfair as reviewers anonymous.;AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant's redundancy genuine. Consultation process adequate. Applicant chose not to participate in consultation and sought immediate decision from respondent. Selection process fair and identity of reviewers not kept from applicant. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A;Interpretation Act 1999 s7;Interpretation Act 1999 s4 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_118.pdf [pdf 129 KB] |