| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 231 |
| Hearing date | 19 Jun 2012 |
| Determination date | 10 July 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | E Subritzky (In person); N Dow |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Subritzky v Mullins Tyres Auckland Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Authority found redundancy genuine response to increasing financial losses of business - Applicant adequately consulted and given opportunity to raise alternative options to redundancy but chose not to do so - Dismissal justified - Manager |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as manager. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Respondent experienced financial losses and held staff meetings discussing issues. Respondent concluded applicant's role most costly and applicant's shop experiencing biggest losses. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed not adequately consulted and not given opportunity to comment or provide alternatives. Respondent claimed one on one meeting attended by respondent and applicant. Applicant conceded one on one meeting took place.;AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority found redundancy genuine response to inreasing financial losses of business. Applicant adequately consulted and given opportunity to raise alternative options to redundancy but chose not to do so. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s149A |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_231.pdf [pdf 143 KB] |