Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No [2016] NZERA Christchurch 76
Hearing date 2-Jun-16
Determination date 02 June 2016
Member Peter van Keulen
Representation P de Wattignar ; C Crichton
Location Dunedin
Parties Heathman-Anngow v Bed Bath & Beyond NZ Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to resolve claims of bullying – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Sales Assistant
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Order for non-publication of identifying details of other employee. Respondent did not fully investigate applicant’s complaint in breach of good faith. Respondent also failed to conclude complaint properly. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged. Decision to restructure for genuine commercial reasons but doubts about whether applicant’s selection for redundancy for genuine motivations. Respondent failed to provide sufficient information to applicant at many stages of consultation. Applicant not given opportunity to provide meaningful feedback. Respondent did not consider redeployment. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $2,546 reimbursement of lost wages. $12,000 compensation appropriate.
Result Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,546.25) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($12,000) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s4;ERA s103;ERA s103A
Cases Cited Grace Team Accounting Ltd v Brake [2014] NZCA 541, [2015] 2 NZLR 494;GN Hale & Son Ltd v Wellington Caretakers IUOW [1991] 1 NZLR 151 (CA);PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808 (EmpC);Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley [2011] NZEmpC 37, [2011] ERNZ 138
Number of Pages 22
PDF File Link: 2016_NZERA_Christchurch_76.pdf [pdf 228 KB]