| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 410 |
| Hearing date | 5 Nov 2012 |
| Determination date | 19 November 2012 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | K Beck ; K Dunn |
| Parties | The Pulp & Paper Industry Council of the Manufacturing and Construction Workers Union v Norske Skog Tasman Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Parties disputed application of respondent’s redundancy and redeployment policy (“policy”) – Parties disputed whether respondent had defined “work area” in accordance with policy – Authority found respondent had discretion to define work area as paper mill rather than to particular machine – Found respondent gave reasonable explanation for why had chosen different approach to that applied to closure of machine previously - Respondent had exercised discretion in accordance with policy - Question answered in favour of respondent |
| Abstract | Parties disputed application of respondent’s redundancy and redeployment policy (“policy”). Redundancy situation arose for members of applicant and parties’ collective employment agreement (“CEA”) stated policy applied. Respondent operated two machines producing paper at plant where applicant’s members worked. Due to market decrease respondent decided to close one machine in near future. Policy applied to employees in affected work areas. Policy defined “work area” as being area within which both machines operated but applicant claimed “work area” should be confined to machine being closed. Respondent claimed redundancies resulted from “partial de-manning of work group” not “asset closure.” Respondent defined work area after discussion with union. If respondent had concluded redundancy was result of asset closure, policy’s redundancy clauses would apply only to employees operating machine to be closed not to all employees in paper mill area. Respondent previously confined work area to machine when another machine closed previously. Respondent claimed when decided on work area considered lack of volunteers for redundancy, fairness to employees who had transferred between machines and retention of employee skills. Applicant claimed wider work area allowed respondent to pick and choose subjectively what employees respondent wanted to stay.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;DISPUTE: Authority noted personal grievance remedy remained available to employees claiming redundancy not genuine. Respondent had discretion to define work area as paper mill rather than particular machine. Respondent gave reasonable explanation for why had chosen different approach to that applied to closure of machine previously. Respondent’s focus on retention of skills narrow if limited to consideration of only skills employee had acquired at time of redundancy rather than skills employee might acquire through training but matter for respondent to consider when selection process applied. Respondent had exercised discretion in accordance with policy. Question answered in favour of respondent. |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_410.pdf [pdf 217 KB] |