| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 209 |
| Hearing date | 25 May 2012 |
| Determination date | 20 June 2012 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Parties | Malone v The Farmers Trading Company Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent and respondent breached good faith obligations – Authority found respondent acted as reasonable employer and in timely manner when discovered had mistakenly paid applicant redundancy - Found applicant aware mistake had been made and could return to work - Found respondent acted in good faith towards applicant - No dismissal - Salesperson |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as salesperson. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent and respondent breached good faith obligations. Respondent chose site where applicant worked (“X”) for redevelopment and commenced reconfirmation process. Applicant claimed made redundant before reconfirmation process ended. Respondent’s payroll incorrectly processed applicant’s redundancy instead of another employee. Respondent claimed due to redevelopment of X applicant required to lift heavy goods. Applicant unable to lift heavy goods due to medical condition. Respondent manager (“L”) claimed told applicant redundancy last resort and no redundancy decision made. Applicant claimed L did not discuss alternatives to redundancy and decision to end applicant’s employment predetermined. L away from workplace and discovered applicant paid redundancy on return. L claimed attempted unsuccessfully to resolve error with applicant. Applicant did not return to work.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent acted as reasonable employer and in timely manner when discovered had mistakenly paid applicant redundancy. Applicant aware mistake had been made and had option of returning to work. No dismissal. Applicant effectively accepted voluntary redundancy. Alternatively applicant justifiably dismissed as refused to consider alternatives or continue with reconfirmation process. Respondent acted in good faith towards applicant. Respondent did not have pre-determined intention to terminate applicant’s employment. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(b) |
| Cases Cited | GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington Caretakers IUOW (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843 ; [1991] 1 NZLR 151 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_209.pdf [pdf 285 KB] |