| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 341 |
| Hearing date | 29 Mar 2012 |
| Determination date | 01 October 2012 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | R Watson (in person) ; C Parkhill |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Watson v UGL (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions and unjustifiably dismissed – Authority found respondent’s consultation process not genuine - Found applicant’s suitability already assessed by respondent without applicant being given opportunity to comment on proposed disestablishment of position – Found although applicant had claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions, matters normally those considered as part of inquiry whether applicant justifiably dismissed – Found respondent’s redundancy process unfair and unreasonable – Found respondent’s breach of duty sufficiently serious that reasonably foreseeable applicant would resign - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES - No contributory conduct - Respondent to pay applicant $7,500 reimbursement of lost wages - $12,000 compensation appropriate - Technician |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as technician. Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions and unjustifiably dismissed. Respondent claimed followed fair redundancy process and applicant resigned. Respondent implemented restructure. Managers scored employees to identify which employees could be disestablished following consultation. Applicant told at staff meeting required to meet with respondent human resources advisor about proposed redundancy. Respondent claimed applicant had lowest score and proposed applicant's position disestablished. Applicant given three working days to provide feedback on proposal. Applicant claimed discovered respondent advertising position identical to applicant’s role. Respondent claimed advertisement should not be on website and later removed it. Respondent extended time given to applicant to make submissions. Applicant invited to meeting to give proposal feedback. Applicant resigned before meeting and claimed redundancy not genuine.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Manner applicant informed of redundancy proposal appalling. Respondent’s timeframe for applicant to provide feedback unreasonable as applicant initially expected to prepare response over weekend. Respondent’s consultation not genuine as applicant’s suitability already assessed by respondent without applicant being given opportunity to comment. Only after applicant’s lawyer challenged respondent’s process did applicant become aware further consultation with respondent futile. Although applicant had claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s actions, matters normally those considered as part of inquiry whether applicant justifiably dismissed. Respondent’s redundancy process unfair and unreasonable. Respondent’s breach of duty sufficiently serious that reasonably foreseeable applicant would resign. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $7,500 reimbursement of lost wages. $12,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified dismissal) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($12,000) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($7,500) ; Application dismissed (unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A;ERA s128(2);ERA s128(3) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW Inc [1994] 1 ERNZ 168 ; [1994] 2 NZLR 415;Communication and Energy Workers Union Inc v Telecom New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 429;NZ Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites [2000] 1 ERNZ 739 ; [2000] 2 NZLR 565;Wellington International Airport Ltd v Air New Zealand Ltd [1993] 1 NZLR 671 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_341.pdf [pdf 205 KB] |