| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 144 |
| Hearing date | 16 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 13 July 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | T Wilton ; A Shaw |
| Location | Invercargill |
| Parties | Pinn and Ors v Solid Energry New Zealand Ltd |
| Other Parties | Valli, Waghorn |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicants claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found respondent misled applicants by promoting skills assessment tool as central mechanism for selecting redundant staff – Found respondent failed to inform applicants that ability to perform certain tasks would be given greater weight – Dismissals unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Respondent to pay first and third applicants reimbursement of lost wages and superannuation, parties to determine quantum - $10,000 compensation appropriate (first, second and third applicants) – Miners |
| Abstract | Applicants employed by respondent as miners. Applicants claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Respondent decided to reduce staff and dismissed three employees. Authority and Employment Court found dismissals unjustified as respondent’s selection criteria flawed. Before Authority determination issued, respondent decided to reduce staff further. Employees ranked against skills assessment tool. Applicants dismissed despite not being lowest ranked employees. Respondent claimed employees retained required to perform certain tasks in which applicants lacked proficiency.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority noted delay in issuing determination due to death of second applicant in Pike River mine and Christchurch earthquake. Flaws in respondent’s process leading to Authority and Employment Court finding that previous dismissals unjustified remained in respondent’s dismissal of applicants. Respondent misled applicants by promoting skills assessment tool as central mechanism for selecting redundant staff. Respondent failed to inform applicants that ability to perform certain tasks would be given greater weight. Dismissals unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. If selection process had been applied fairly applicants may not have been dismissed. Respondent to pay first and third applicants reimbursement of lost wages and superannuation, parties to determine quantum. $10,000 compensation appropriate (first, second and third applicants). |
| Result | Applications granted; Reimbursement of lost wages and superannuation (parties to determine quantum)(first and third applicants); Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000)(first, second and third applicants); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Manson v Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd unreported, J Crichton, 18 July 2008, CA102/08;Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd v Manson unreported, Couch J, 15 December 2009, CC21/09 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_144.pdf [pdf 251 KB] |