| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 258 |
| Hearing date | 13 Jun 2013 |
| Determination date | 20 December 2013 |
| Member | C Hickey |
| Representation | J Goldstein, L Ryder ; E Coats |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Wills v Goodman Fielder New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to make applicant redundant – Workplace damaged and partially closed following earthquake – Staff applicant managed made redundant – Applicant claimed disparity of treatment by not being made redundant - Applicant’s role changed and applicant claimed no meaningful ongoing work – Applicant claimed respondent failed to address concerns - Applicant unhappy and claimed ongoing uncertainty affected health and wellbeing – Applicant requested to be made redundant – Whether applicant entitled to redundancy payment under parties’ employment agreement - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant resigned following continued uncertainty about future with respondent - GOOD FAITH – Applicant claimed respondent breached duty of good faith by failing to constructively respond to applicant’s requests for information - Plant manager |
| Abstract | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Applicant clearly advised of respondent’s intention to continue to employ applicant. At time of other redundancies applicant appeared pleased to have continuing work. In absence of decision about rebuild of workplace applicant suffered some disadvantage due to uncertainty but decision not to make applicant redundant fair and reasonable. No disparity of treatment however if Authority wrong disparity justified as applicant’s management still required. Applicant may not have had as much work as before earthquake but work not taken away due to action of respondent. Applicant did not tell respondent of health and wellbeing concerns until end of employment. Applicant resigned before respondent had opportunity to consider redundancy request or respond to wellbeing concerns. Respondent fair and reasonable to notify applicant no decision made on future of workplace. In absence of timely, clear, good faith communication from applicant, respondent could not have known how uncertainty affecting applicant. Applicant’s position not disestablished and respondent’s initiative. Contractual provisions clear applicant not entitled to be made redundant.;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent did not breach any duties owed to applicant. Applicant resigned as new employment secured. No dismissal.;GOOD FAITH: Respondent provided applicant with information. Applicant accepted altered role and did not bring up redundancy of applicant at time of other redundancies. Respondent met duty of good faith to communicate properly with applicant. No breach of good faith. |
| Result | Applications dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(b) - ERA s4(1A)(c) – ERA s103 - ERA s103(1)(b) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IUOW Inc [1994] 1 ERNZ 168 ; [1994] 2 NZLR 415;Auckland Regional Council v Sanson [1999] 2 ERNZ 597;Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Wallis [1998] 3 ERNZ 984;Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan (No 2) [2005] ERNZ 767;Gray v Nelson Methodist Presbyterian Hospital Chaplaincy Committee [1995] 1 ERNZ 672;NZ Amalgamated Engineering etc IUOW v Ritchies Transport Holdings Ltd [1991] 2 ERNZ 267;Watties Frozen Foods Ltd v United Food & Chemical Workers Union [1992] 2 ERNZ 1038;Wellington, Taranaki and Marlborough Clerical Etc IUOW v Greenwich (t/a Greenwich and Associates Employment Agency and Complete Fitness Centre) [1983] ACJ 965 |
| Number of Pages | 27 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_258.pdf [pdf 393 KB] |