| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 317 |
| Hearing date | 25 Jun 2012 |
| Determination date | 11 September 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | E Mander (in person) ; P McBride |
| Location | Rotorua |
| Parties | Mander v IHC New Zealand Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by being bullied and harassed by respondent – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant justifiably dismissed on ground of redundancy – Authority found insufficient evidence to take bullying claim further and no evidence applicant harassed by manager (“B”) – No unjustified disadvantage – Found while respondent’s communication style tended to obfuscate, style way some managers communicate and no evidence respondent ‘s communications written that way to obscure meaning – Found B did not micro-manage applicant – Found redundancy genuine – Found redundancy executed in procedurally fair manner, applicant took no steps in relation to consultation and made no complaints about process at time – Dismissal justified – Vocational coordinator |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as vocational coordinator. Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by being bullied and harassed by respondent. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. After communications from respondent’s manager (“B”) foreshadowing possible restructure, consultation paper issued proposing to disestablish applicant’s position and B sought applicant’s input into location of replacement position. After consultation meeting respondent decided to disestablish applicant’s position and B made clear applicant welcome to apply for replacement position in neighbouring city. Applicant did not respond to further requests by respondent to discuss applicant’s future. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed respondent wanted to get rid of applicant and ‘Machiavellian’ communications hid true agenda. Applicant claimed treated differently to other employees and micro-managed by B after respondent decided to disestablish applicant’s position. Applicant claimed had complained to manager (“I”) about being bullied on four occasions but had only been referred to employment assistance programme. I left respondent subsequently and respondent’s managers claimed unaware applicant complained about being bullied. Applicant claimed harassed by B after respondent decided to disestablish applicant’s position.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: If applicant’s allegations of bullying not dealt with properly, applicant ought to have taken matters further and insufficient evidence for Authority to take claim further. B only trying to get applicant to engage with respondent regarding applicant’s future and did not harass applicant. No unjustified disadvantage. While respondent’s communication style tended to obfuscate rather than elucidate, style way some managers communicate and no evidence respondent’s communications written that way to obscure meaning. Respondent answered applicant’s allegation of difference of treatment by stating difference at applicant’s insistence and statistics of all volunteer coordinators available on intranet. B sought to discuss consequences of disestablishment of applicant’s role with applicant and did not micro-manage applicant. Redundancy genuine. Redundancy executed in procedurally fair manner and, even if communications prior to issuing of consultation paper too opaque, applicant aware of meaning of proposal. Applicant took no steps in relation to consultation and made no complaints about process at time. Respondent spent significant energy on attempting to establish what applicant wanted for future but applicant refused to engage. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Applications dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Trotter v Telecom Corp of New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_317.pdf [pdf 158 KB] |