| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 160 |
| Hearing date | 24 Oct 2012 |
| Determination date | 17 December 2012 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | N Ridder ; R Parmenter |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Wang v Tekron International Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant justifiably dismissed on ground of redundancy – Authority found respondent did not enter into pretence of redundancy to avoid performance management of applicant – Found applicant did not have what respondent considered full workload – Found while general manager's (N") memo to Board indicated would take something ‘completely from left field’ to change N’s mind, respondent entitled to develop working proposal and N prepared to consider alternative suggestions from applicant – Found research and development work removed from applicant due to applicant’s lack of performance and did not show redundancy predetermined –Dismissal justified – Production manager" |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as production manager. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant initially employed by respondent as development and assembly engineer. Following promotion to production manager applicant lost responsibility for shipping function. General manager (“N”) removed research and development work from applicant as claimed applicant not suited to work in area. Applicant took annual leave during which N observed replacement able to cover applicant’s job on top of own duties. N claimed concerned with applicant’s light work load and asked applicant to take back shipping function. Applicant declined and requested research and development work. N gained permission from Board to make applicant redundant as claimed position not required and no suitable alternative role available for applicant. N gave applicant notice of meeting and asked applicant for suggestions to cause respondent to rethink proposed redundancy. At meeting applicant defended work load and requested research and development work but N reiterated in later correspondence applicant not suited to research and development work. Applicant noted concern role disestablished when two employees recently hired. Applicant dismissed.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent did not enter into pretence of redundancy to avoid performance management of applicant. Employee who undertook role following applicant’s dismissal able to perform role in quarter of time. Respondent’s new employees not replacements for applicant. Redundancy genuine. While N’s memo to Board indicated would take something ‘completely from left field’ to change N’s mind, respondent entitled to develop working proposal and N prepared to consider alternative suggestions from applicant. Lack of predetermination shown by respondent extending time given to applicant to prepare alternative proposal to redundancy. Research and development work removed from applicant due to applicant’s lack of performance and did not show redundancy predetermined. Respondent met requirement for providing applicant access to information relevant to continuing employment. Speed of process and applicant’s exit, and respondent providing pay in lieu of notice did not constitute unjustified disadvantage or dismissal. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A(3) |
| Cases Cited | Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley [2011] ERNZ 138 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_160.pdf [pdf 190 KB] |