| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 133 |
| Hearing date | 27 Nov 2012 |
| Determination date | 19 April 2013 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | P Cranney ; D France |
| Location | Rotorua |
| Parties | Moore v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Authority found applicant had access to relevant ranking information from redundancy selection criteria as applied to applicant and other affected employees via union representative (“D”) - Found D acted as applicant’s authorised representative and respondent entitled to rely on representation in regard to providing information to applicant – Found applicant had fair and reasonable opportunity to comment on information via D – Found no evidence to suggest respondent failed to meet obligations to applicant – Dismissal justified - Operator |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as operator. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Following meeting with union and potentially affected employees respondent decided to disestablish six positions in applicant’s division. Respondent met with union representative (“D”) and other union organisers to discuss selection criteria for identifying six candidates for redundancy. Agreement on selection criteria reached. Unions asked respondent to call for voluntary redundancy site-wide. Respondent claimed did not call for voluntary redundancy site-wide as respondent needed to retain skills in business and restructuring only affected applicant’s division. Unions requested respondent withdraw from redundancy process on basis no genuine consultation had taken place and respondent did not act in good faith regarding restructuring as time line self-imposed without allowing employees full consultation with unions or respondent. Respondent reviewed employees in applicant’s division for redundancy using selection criteria. D among group attended sessions where employees scores discussed. Respondent claimed discussed applicant’s score and score of all affected employees with D at moderation sessions. Respondent claimed D communication channel for affected employees. D claimed only able to communicate with applicant as union member and D claimed respondent already decided candidates for redundancy with no changes during moderation sessions. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed respondent made and implemented decision without giving applicant access to relevant information and opportunity to comment and respondent failed to comply with obligation under collective employment agreement (“CEA”) to establish job search programme to assist applicant in finding alternative work with respondent or other employer.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant had access to relevant ranking information from redundancy selection criteria as applied to applicant and other affected employees via D. D acted as applicant’s authorised representative and respondent entitled to rely on representation in regard to providing information to applicant who responded via D. Applicant had access to all relevant information and fair and reasonable opportunity to comment on information via D. Given economic circumstances of industry no likelihood of respondent having alternative employment for applicant. Job search programme established and respondent arranged meeting for applicant with recruitment company. No evidence to suggest respondent failed to meet obligations to applicant under CEA. No evidence to suggest pace of process resulted in unfairness to applicant. Respondent adopted fair and reasonable selection criteria with substantial input from two unions and criteria applied fairly to applicant. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s4(1A)(c)(i);ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley [2011] ERNZ 138 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_133.pdf [pdf 259 KB] |