| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Christchurch 34 |
| Hearing date | 3 Feb 2015 |
| Determination date | 16 March 2015 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | G Hill ; C Murdoch |
| Location | Blenheim |
| Parties | Rowe v Picton Building Centre Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by consultation process leading to dismissal and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Respondent's owner (K") took over some of applicant's duties without drawing salary - Manager" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Fact applicant's position not superfluous to respondent's requirements did not render applicant's dismissal unjustified. Respondent faced substantial financial losses and could have failed if situation not addressed reasonably urgently. Respondent took into account other increased elements of expenses when determining that reduction of wage bill essential element in reducing loss. K's decision to step into applicant's role decision fair and reasonable employer could have made. Subsequent advertisement for senior supervisor position not to fill applicant's position. Other alternatives considered. Respondent's decision not focused on increasing return on investment. Dismissal substantively justified. Respondent should not have held two consultation meetings with applicant without providing financial information relied on but disadvantage not unjustified as no grievance raised within 90 days. Applicant provided with financial information before dismissal. Consultation genuine but applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by initially nebulous proposals. Applicant's dismissal not predetermined. Not unreasonable for respondent to proceed with process when applicant's preferred support person unavailable for two weeks. Dismissal not rendered unjustified by single procedural flaw. Dismissal justified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $3,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ECA;ERA;ERA s3(a)(ii);ERA s4;ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A;ERA s114(1);ERA s114(6);ERA s124;ERA s128 |
| Cases Cited | Aoraki Corp Ltd v McGavin [1998] 3 NZLR 276 (CA);Rittson-Thomas, (T/A Totara Hills Farm v Davidson [2013] NZEmpC 39, [2013] ERNZ 55;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Christchurch_34.pdf [pdf 254 KB] |