| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Christchurch 21 |
| Hearing date | 27 Nov 2014 - 28 Nov 2014, 19 Feb 2015 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 23 February 2015 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | J Tonner ; P Shaw |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Anderson v The Board of Trustees of Halswell Residential College |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Whether applicant's role and new youth worker role substantially similar - Assistant residential social worker |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority ordered non-publication of identity of respondent's students, certain employees of respondent and evidence of applicant's medical practitioner. New youth worker role had different focus and responsibility from applicant's role and sufficiently different to justify being treated as distinct. Applicant not entitled to be reconfirmed into new role under terms of collective employment agreement. No positions available at time of dismissal into which applicant could be reconfirmed. Criteria against which applicant assessed for new role appropriate. Respondent's conclusion applicant did not have requisite level of skill to de-escalate difficult situations without assistance not unreasonable. Applicant's misunderstanding of nature of question about planning activities not objectively justified and could not be blamed on respondent. Panel not objectively unreasonable in assessing applicant's activity planning capability as falling short of required standard based on interview answers. Other employee not given preferential treatment through coaching not available to applicant. Respondent placed significant weight on applicant's interview performance with only cursory review of day to day performance during employment. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's failure to explore in detail applicant's relevant skills and attributes with applicant's managers. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's failure to allow or encourage applicant to retrieve forgotten notes before second interview. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's failure to reveal specific scores after first interview. Respondent's rationale for considering that employees who scored below six in any category could not be trained in time to take on enhanced requirements of new role acceptable. Applicant would not have been suitable for more difficult environment in which new role would operate requiring need to de-escalate situations. Respondent's failure to take into account managers' views meant not possible to determine if applicant able to be trained in activity planning. Applicant's dismissal would still have occurred if fair process followed. Dismissal justified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $5,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application partially granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ECA;ERA;ERA s4;ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A;ERA s122;ERA s124;ERA s128 |
| Cases Cited | Aoraki Corp Ltd v McGavin [1998] 3 NZLR 276 (CA);Wang v Hamilton Multicultural Services Trust [2010] NZEmpC 142, [2010] ERNZ 468 |
| Number of Pages | 29 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Christchurch_21.pdf [pdf 319 KB] |