| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 471 |
| Hearing date | 5 Mar 2012 |
| Determination date | 21 December 2012 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | K Khan (in person) ; C Blake, S van der Wel |
| Parties | Khan v Oracle New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found applicant’s claims relating to equal opportunities and retaliation not passed on to manager and only given weight by applicant following dismissal - Found respondent gave applicant adequate time to prepare and respond to proposal to dismiss and gave applicant all relevant information – Found respondent made business decision to disestablish applicant’s position and dealt with applicant in good faith – Dismissal justified – Principal Consultant |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as principal consultant. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Following period of time with no billable assignments applicant undertook overseas project. Applicant returned to New Zealand during consultation over restructure. Respondent denied applicant’s request for two day extension of consultation period. Applicant dismissed. Respondent claimed genuine redundancy situation and applicant dismissed as downturn in available work for applicant. Applicant claimed faced discrimination from other employees and dismissal retaliation for incidents including making work improvement suggestions.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent entitled to assess employees’ skill levels and assignment of project to other employee not unfair treatment of applicant. Applicant’s claims relating to equal opportunities and retaliation not passed on to manager and only given weight by applicant following dismissal. Respondent reporting favourably on applicant’s performance, giving applicant opportunities to up-skill and making efforts to re-deploy applicant not conduct of acrimonious employer. No evidence to support applicant’s high level of mistrust of respondent. Respondent gave applicant adequate time to prepare and respond to proposal to dismiss and gave applicant all relevant information. Respondent considered applicant’s feedback on restructuring proposal. Respondent made business decision to disestablish applicant’s position and dealt with applicant in good faith. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_471.pdf [pdf 213 KB] |