| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 251 |
| Hearing date | 9 Feb 2012 |
| Determination date | 25 July 2012 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | W Reid ; S-J Davies |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Hecht v Erson Holdings Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant justifiably dismissed on ground of redundancy – Authority found genuine need for respondent to reduce wage costs substantially – Found while on-going problems in relationship between applicant and other employees, more probable fact applicant’s position could be performed by others genuine reason for making position redundant – Found tangible evidence applicant appointed manager – Found redundancy genuine – Found level of consultation adequate and no failure by respondent to consider alternative employment options – Dismissal justified – Manager |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as manager. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant employed initially as casual waitress / kitchenhand. After other employees resigned, applicant undertook additional duties and claimed given ‘label’ of manager. Respondent claimed applicant asked to take over management and employed fulltime. Respondent claimed needed to reduce costs and wrote to employees proposing disestablishment of manager’s position. Following meeting applicant indicated would like to be considered for another position, received detailed job description for new position and provided feedback in regard to restructure proposal. Applicant unsuccessful in application for new position. Respondent’s advisor suggested retaining applicant in different position, but respondent considered creating new position would defeat purpose of reducing costs. Applicant invited to put forward alternative employment options but applicant made no suggestions. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed decision to make applicant’s position redundant tainted by improper motive. Applicant claimed respondent had decided applicant ‘had to go’ in order to resolve conflict between applicant and other employees threatening to resign if applicant did not leave. Applicant claimed position not redundant as managerial duties only ‘overlay of additional responsibility’ not detracting from duties applicant engaged to perform originally. Applicant claimed not consulted and submissions not considered with open mind.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Genuine need for respondent to reduce wage costs substantially. While on-going problems in relationship between applicant and other employees, respondent had discussions with all concerned, involved a mediator, resolved conflict by having applicant work different hours to other employees and more probable fact applicant’s position could be performed by others genuine reason for making position redundant. Tangible evidence applicant appointed manager and applicant referred to applicant’s position as manager in response to restructuring proposal. Redundancy genuine. Level of consultation with applicant adequate and respondent did not fail to consider alternative employment options, although applicant made no suggestions. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | G N Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington etc Caretakers etc IUOW (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843; [1991] 1 NZLR 151;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_251.pdf [pdf 239 KB] |