| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Wellington 105 |
| Hearing date | 5 Jun 2013 |
| Determination date | 28 August 2013 |
| Member | M Ryan |
| Representation | I Hodgetts ; No Appearance |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Pau and Anor v Venture Partner Management Services Ltd t/a Teonn Cleaning Services |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - Whether applicants in employment relationship with respondent - Applicants elected transfer from previous employer - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicants claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Limited correspondence from respondent - Respondent notified applicants employment could not continue - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for order to bargain and application to fix redundancy entitlements if bargaining unsuccessful - GOOD FAITH - PENALTY - Applicants sought penalty for respondents breach of good faith - Applicants claimed respondent failed to consult applicants regarding termination of employment - Respondent claimed difficulty in contacting applicants - Cleaners |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;JURISDICTION: No appearance for respondent. Applicants in employment relationship with Respondent.;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent failed to supply information as to merits or genuineness of redundancy. Respondent failed to consult with applicants over restructure proposal. Respondent failed to provide applicants information relevant to respondents decision and no opportunity given for comment or discussion. Respondent's actions not fair or reasonable. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: Respondent to pay first applicant $664 reimbursement of lost wages. Respondent to pay second applicant $7,202 reimbursement of lost wages. $1,500 compensation appropriate for first applicant. $8,000 compensation appropriate for second applicant.;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Authority unable to fix entitlements in circumstances. Respondent not required to bargain as to monetary compensation as entitlement excluded by collective agreement but respondent to bargain with applicants for non-monetary redundancy entitlements if applicant's pursue bargaining.;GOOD FAITH - PENALTY: Respondent's failure to consult with applicants amounted to breach of good faith. Breach had serious implications and was deliberate and sustained. No evidence respondent had problems contacting applicants. Respondent deceptive as assured union Employment Relations Act 2000 would be complied with. $3,000 penalty appropriate. |
| Result | Applications granted; Orders made; Reimbursement of lost wages ($664)(first applicant) ($7202)(second applicant; Interest (5%); Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,500)(first applicant) ($8,000)(second applicant); Penalty ($3,000)(payable to Crown); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A) - ERA s4(1A)(c) - ERA s4A - ERA s 69(2)(a) - s69A - ERA s69C - ERA s69F - ERA s69I(2)(b) - ERA s69M - ERA s69N - ERA s69O - ERA s103A - ERA s103A(3) - ERA s128(2) - ERA s128(3) - ERA Part 6A - ERA Schedule 2 cl11 - Judicature Act 1908 s87(3) |
| Cases Cited | Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc v OCS Ltd [2012] 3 NZLR 799;Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc v OCS Ltd (No 2) [2010] ERNZ 331 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Wellington_105.pdf [pdf 284 KB] |