Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2013] NZERA Auckland 524
Hearing date 10 Oct 2013
Determination date 15 November 2013
Member J Crichton
Representation S Austin ; G Tayler
Location Gisborne
Parties Piper v Sinclair Pryor Motors Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent raised performance concerns with applicant – No follow up action in respect of performance – Applicant informed of proposed restructuring – Respondent considered replacing applicant’s role with video conferencing technology – No further meeting requested or offered – Applicant’s position disestablished – Applicant paid in lieu of notice – Respondent discovered Gisbourne branch administration under significant pressure - Respondent subsequently decided against video conferencing proposal – Respondent advertised for new employee – Whether redundancy genuine – Whether respondent breached good faith - Business development manager
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Under-analysis of proposal not indication of mixed-motive. No mixed motives for redundancy. Legitimate business desire to reduce cost. Redundancy genuine. Subsequent dumping of proposal did not effect legitimacy of redundancy. No real urgency for implementation of proposal. Respondent closed mind to alternative scenarios to redundancy. Consultation inadequate. Reason for deciding against proposal and creating new position not unjustified. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $3,000 compensation appropriate.
Result Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A(2) – ERA s124
Cases Cited Rillstone v Product Sourcing International 2000 Ltd unreported, R Arthur, 7 June 2007, AA167/07;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825
Number of Pages 14
PDF File Link: 2013_NZERA_Auckland_524.pdf [pdf 186 KB]