Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Wellington
Reference No [2017] NZERA Wellington 93
Hearing date 14-Mar-17
Determination date 26 September 2017
Member M Loftus
Representation B Calver ; J Bates
Location Napier
Parties Estcourt v Napier City Council
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Redundancy – Constructive Dismissal – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by the manner respondent disestablished position and offered an inappropriate replacement role without redundancy compensation – DISPUTE – Parties disputed entitlement to redundancy compensation– Engineer/ Stormwater Asset Manager
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Respondent did not act in a manner designed to induce resignation. No constructive dismissal. Applicant disengaged with respondent over redeployment before allowing a chance to resolve issues. No disadvantage where applicant had no intention of continuing employment. No unjustified disadvantage. DISPUTE: Alternative position offered significantly different to previous position occupied. Absence of suitable alternative role entitled applicant to redundancy compensation. Questions answered in favour of applicant. Respondent to pay applicant $50,433 redundancy compensation.
Result Applications dismissed (unjustified dismissal)(unjustified disadvantage) ; Question answered in favour of respondent ; Redundancy compensation ($50,433.90) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s174E(b)(ii);ERA s174c(3);ERA s174C(4)
Cases Cited Wellington, Taranaki and Malborough Clerical Workers IUOW v Greenwich (t/a Greenwich and Associates Employment Agency and Complete Fitness Centre) (1983) ERNZ Sel Cas 95 (AC);Weston v Advkit Para Legal Services Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 140;Z v Y Ltd and A [1993] 2 ERNZ 469 (EmpC)
Number of Pages 13
PDF File Link: 2017_NZERA_Wellington_93.pdf [pdf 191 KB]