| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 95 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jan 2013 |
| Determination date | 21 March 2013 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | A Goldstone ; M Quigg |
| Parties | Ford v John Holland New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant employed by respondent to work on project bid – Project bid unsuccessful - Applicant involved in preparatory work for another project for which respondent did not tender – Applicant received exit survey before formal discussion as to state of employment - Bid Manager |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent not obliged to bid for work and decision not to tender for project did not amount to unjustified dismissal. Respondent breached own policy by failing to obtain accurate record of applicant’s skills and did not investigate if suitable alternative position available for applicant. Respondent failed to follow adequate consultation process. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $4,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A;ERA s103A(1);ERA s103A(2);ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(5) |
| Cases Cited | Clarke v AFFCO NZ Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 17 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_95.pdf [pdf 196 KB] |