| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 233 |
| Hearing date | 4 Jul 2013 |
| Determination date | 12 November 2013 |
| Member | C Hickey |
| Representation | P Moore ; R Gibson |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Tulloch v Resource Development Consultants Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – GOOD FAITH – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondents actions and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed respondent breached good faith - Applicant confident of winning number of contracts at time applicant recruited – Respondent ceased offering field geology services – Applicant sought clarification of role and company expectations – Applicant informed no longer required to carry out office management duties – Applicant told needed to secure $8,000 worth of water management work to secure ongoing employment – Respondent proposed disestablishment of applicant’s role – Applicant's role disestablished – PENALTY – Applicant sought penalties for breach of implied term to provide work in area of technical expertise and failure to provide employment agreement – Water management scientist |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – GOOD FAITH: Open to respondent to decide insufficient office management work. Redundancy substantively genuine. Respondent’s expectations of applicant either not fully formed or inadequately communicated. Not fair and reasonable to make applicant redundant without allowing opportunity to gain sufficient water management work. Procedural failings more than minor. No adequate signal applicant’s role in jeopardy. Respondent breached good faith in failing to provide information relevant to decision to disestablish role. Respondent adequately considered redeployment. Purpose of removing applicant’s office administration duties not explained. No consultation regarding change of duties. Not appropriate to make separate disadvantage award. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant reimbursement of lost wages, quantum to be determined. $4,000 compensation appropriate. Costs reserved,;PENALTY: Technical expertise claim not made within 12 months of breach. Failure to provide employment agreement claim not brought by labour inspector. No penalty. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage)(unjustified dismissal)(good faith) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (quantum to be determined) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Application dismissed (penalty) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA - ERA s4 – ERA s4(1A)(1)(b) - ERA s4(1A)(c) – ERA s4(1A)(c)(i) ERA s63A - ERA s63A(2) – ERA s65 – ERA s65(2) - ERA s65(2)(a)(ii) – ERA s65(4) - ERA s103A – ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Aoraki Corporation Ltd v McGavin [1998] 1 ERNZ 601;GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington Caretakers IUOW (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843; [1991] 1 NZLR 151;Rittson-Thomas (t/as Totara Hills Farm) v Davidson (2013) 10 NZELR 391;NCR (NZ) Corporation Ltd v Blowes [2005] ERNZ 932 |
| Number of Pages | 20 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_233.pdf [pdf 317 KB] |