| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Christchurch 183 |
| Hearing date | 19 - 20 Nov 2015 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 30 November 2015 |
| Member | David Appleton |
| Representation | A Riches ; K Chapman |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Sweetman v HNZ New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by suspension from flying duties and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Helicopter pilot |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent suspended applicant after applicant raised personal grievance as respondent concerned that applicant not in fit state to fly. Suspension impacted applicant’s flying currency and meant that applicant did not receive allowance for times he flew. Respondent’s rationale for suspension fair and reasonable in circumstances. No unjustified disadvantage. Respondent had genuine business reasons for needing to reduce numbers of pilots. Respondent entitled to renew contracts of fixed term employees rather than keeping on permanent employees. Dismissal substantively justified. Respondent defined selection pool fairly and used fair selection criteria. Respondent did not need to consult with applicant about third party’s decision to reduce number of pilots needed. Respondent should have consulted with applicant regarding renewal of contracts of fixed term employees, since it had potential to negatively affect applicant’s employment. Information given to applicant about contract renewals misleading and/or deceitful and breached good faith. Respondent failed to allow applicant opportunity to apply for other position for which applicant was suited, although unlikely that applicant appointed anyway. Respondent failed to offer applicant support person, although applicant had time to seek professional advice. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: Reinstatement not practicable and reasonable. $10,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified dismissal) ; Compensation ($10,000) ; Application dismissed (unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s4;ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s66;ERA s103A;ERA s103A(5);ERA s125 |
| Cases Cited | Baguley v Coutts Cars Ltd [2000] 2 ERNZ 409 (EmpC);Canterbury Westland Free Kindergarten Association t/a Kidsfirst Kindergartens v New Zealand Educational Institute [2004] 1 ERNZ 547 (EmpC);Hall v Dionex Pty Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 29;Lewis v Howick College Board of Trustees [2010] NZEmpC 4, [2010] ERNZ;McIvor v Saad [2015] NZEmpC 145;Nafissi v New Zealand School of Education Ltd [2011] NZERA Auckland 445;Nee Nee v TLNZ Auckland Ltd [2006] ERNZ 95 (EmpC);NZ Building Trades Union v Hawke’s Bay Area Health Board [1992] 2 ERNZ 897 (EmpC);New Zealand Educational Institute v Board of Trustees of Auckland Normal Intermediate School [1994] 2 ERNZ 414 (CA);Redgwell v Morrison Printing Inks & Machinery Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 235 (ET);Rittson-Thomas t/a Totara Hills Farm v Davidson [2013] NZEmpC 39, [2013] ERNZ 55;Walker v Firth Industries [2014] NZEmpC 60, (2014) 11 NZELR 779;Waterford Holdings Ltd v Morunga [2015] NZEmpC 132 |
| Number of Pages | 36 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Christchurch_183.pdf [pdf 445 KB] |