| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 180 |
| Hearing date | 22 Feb 2011 |
| Determination date | 24 August 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | A McInally ; T McGinn |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Crisp v PMP Print Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant justifiably dismissed on ground of redundancy – Authority found night shift positions different from day shift positions, applicant engaged as only day shift machine operator and day shift machine operator position remained – Found no genuine redundancy – Found no evidence respondent provided union with detailed information requested – Found union entitled to make information request and respondent proceeded with proposal in contravention of respondent’s good faith obligations – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - $5,000 compensation appropriate – Machine operator |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as machine operator. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant only operator of certain machine (“OMG”) on day shift. Respondent announced needed to make significant cost savings. At meeting respondent and union discussed two options. First option included changes to collective employment agreement, closure of night shift and redeployment of night shift employees to other shifts. Second option was to make seven staff redundant. Respondent decided to pursue second option as union advised favoured neither option and first option required union agreement. Respondent told staff night shift would cease and seven bindery positions made redundant. Employees informed staff on all shifts potentially affected, would be ranked against selection criteria and asked to indicate first and second preference between morning and afternoon shift. Union asked respondent to cease restructuring proposal until previous request for financial information answered and discussed. Respondent claimed union attempting to halt process but told union would provide sufficient financial information to help explain why restructure necessary. Respondent subsequently advised union detailed financial report being prepared but gave outline of situation. Respondent considered applicant scored lowest against selection criteria out of bindery assistants able to operate OMG. Applicant informed to be made redundant and invited to meeting to discuss applicant’s entitlements and other assistance company might offer. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed as night shift being closed all redundant employees should come from night shift.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority noted delay in issuing determination due to Christchurch earthquake. Although applicant considered bindery assistant by respondent, applicant had occupied OMG operator position on day shift for some years and terms of employment had changed by virtue of practice. Night shift positions different from day shift positions as employees’ hours of work set in employment agreement. Applicant engaged as only day shift OMG operator and day shift OMG operator position remained. No genuine redundancy. No evidence respondent provided union with detailed information requested. Union responded to respondent’s proposal and sought to have process held until response to information request received. Union entitled to make information request and respondent proceeded with proposal in contravention of respondent’s good faith obligations. Respondent only commenced individual consultation with applicant after decision to dismiss applicant made. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $5,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s103A;ERA s128(2);Interpretation Act 1999;Interpretation Act 1999 s4;Interpretation Act 1999 s7 |
| Cases Cited | Barnes (formerly Kissell) v Whangarei Returned Services Assoc (Inc) [1997] ERNZ 626;Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd (2011) 9 NZELC 93,655 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_180.pdf [pdf 195 KB] |