| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 463 |
| Hearing date | 20 - 21 May 2013 |
| Determination date | 08 October 2013 |
| Member | T G Tetitaha |
| Representation | P J Pa'u ; C F Parkhill, J V R James |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Moore v Electrix Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s handling of dismissal and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed respondent’s selection process breached good faith – Applicant previously successful in Authority against respondent – Major client of respondent withdrew provision of in house training - Respondent proposed disestablishment of seven positions and creation of six – No minutes of meetings – Applicant extensively consulted – Applicant granted leave – Applicant provided submissions on process – Applicant’s role to be merged with other role – Whether redundancy genuine – Applicant attended meeting regarding outcome – Respondent provided applicant termination letter at meeting – Respondent supervised applicant’s departure – Applicant accused of deleting confidential information – QSE and Training Administrator |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Lack of minutes of meetings not evidence applicant targeted for dismissal. No evidence of pre-determination. New role and employee characteristics sufficiently different to break essential continuity of employment. Genuine reasons for disestablishment of applicant’s role. No evidence of collusion or conspiracy to prevent selection of applicant. Dismissal justified. No breach of good faith. Applicant known to be stressed and upset. Termination meeting requested without notice. Misunderstanding about purpose of meeting. Exit imposed on applicant undignified. Respondent failed to act fairly and reasonably. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s handling of dismissal. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $7,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($7,000) ; Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A(5);ERA s128(1)(b) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Regional Council v Sanson [1999] 2 ERNZ 597;Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Wallis [1998] 3 ERNZ 984;G N Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington etc Caretakers etc IUOW (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843 ; [1991] 1 NZLR 151;Marlborough Harbour Board v Goulden (1985) ERNZ Sel Cas 159 ; [1985] 2 NZLR 378;Moore v Electrix Ltd [2012] NZERA Auckland 184;NCR (NZ) Corp Ltd v Blowes [2005] ERNZ 932;Rittson-Thomas (t/as Totara Hills Farm) v Davidson (2013) 10 NZELR 391;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825;Whelan v Waitaki Meats Ltd (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 960 ; [1991] 2 NZLR 74 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_463.pdf [pdf 188 KB] |