| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 189 |
| Hearing date | 6 - 7 May 2013 |
| Determination date | 14 May 2013 |
| Member | T G Tetitaha |
| Representation | P Swarbrick, K Beck, T Oldfield ; T Clark |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kreider v Vodafone New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Parties disputed whether applicant’s role and proposed role substantially similar and whether applicant should be appointed to new position – Applicant’s role disestablished following acquisition of competitor - New role included former role’s responsibilities - Whether respondent breached obligation of good faith – General Counsel |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND-;DISPUTE: Authority set aside non-publication order. Organisational change did not make previous role redundant. Skills, remuneration and responsibility similar between roles. Key differences not included in role profile. New role same as previous role. No evidence indicating applicant unsuitable for new role. No requirement to reapply. Good faith personal grievance to be determined at substantive hearing. Questions answered in favour of applicant. |
| Result | Questions answered in favour of applicant ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Regional Council v Sanson [1999] 2 ERNZ 597;Wallis v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [1998] 3 ERNZ 984;GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington Caretakers IUOW (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843; [1991] 1 NZLR 151;Rittson-Thomas t/a Totara Hills Farm v Davidson [2013] NZEmpC 39 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_189.pdf [pdf 371 KB] |