| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 5/01 |
| Determination date | 25 January 2001 |
| Member | WRC Gardiner |
| Representation | P Cole ; J Price |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Fuller v Printspot Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Genuine redundancy - Sale of business - Operation and assets sold - Whether procedurally unjustified - No contractual obligation to pay compensation - Meetings were conducted properly and appropriately - Fair and reasonable treatment by respondent |
| Abstract | This was an unsuccessful unjustified dismissal claim investigated by the Employment Relations Authority.;The applicant was employed by the respondent. The managers of the respondent became aware through a newspaper advertisement that a party was seeking to buy a printing business. They entered into negotiations and subsequently sold the business, however, for operational reasons the purchaser did not require the services of the applicant. It was accepted that the redundancy was genuine. There was no written contract of employment between the parties. It was agreed that there were no contractual obligations regarding redundancy or the payment of compensation in the event a redundancy situation occurred.;The applicant was advised of the sale at a meeting at 9am on Monday 2 October. The staff were briefed about the prospective change in ownership and were not told whether or not they would be offered ongoing employment. Later that afternoon the respondent managers met with the applicant and advised him that as the new owner did not have a position for him his employment would cease on 30 October. The applicant elected to leave early and be paid in lieu of notice.;HELD: (1) The actions of the respondent in allowing the applicant to be paid in lieu of notice, offering assistance with CV preparation and counselling, providing a reference and endeavouring to relocate the applicant were those of a reasonable employer acting fairly. The meetings were conducted properly and appropriately, the respondent managers met with the applicant in an appropriate setting and other staff were not present.;(2) It was common ground that there was no contractual obligation requiring the payment of redundancy compensation . The law was quite clear that a redundancy dismissal was not procedurally vitiated because redundancy compensation was not paid (Aoraki Corporation Ltd v McGavin [1998] 1 ERNZ 601 referred to).;(3) There was no obligation on the respondent managers to discuss with staff the fact that they were contemplating and/or negotiating a sale of the business. The delay between meeting the applicant in the morning and telling him of his redundancy that afternoon might not have been desirable, however, matters of procedure should not be subjected to minute or pedantic scrutiny but rather regard should be had to fairness from the perspective of both parties. The decision could be open to some element of criticism, but that was far from sufficient to support a finding of lack of procedural justification. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s174(a) |
| Cases Cited | Aoraki Corporation Ltd v McGavin [1998] 1 ERNZ 601;Atkinson v Mastertrade Ltd unreported, Shaw J, 2 October 2000, WC 49/00;Atwill v Tanners Timberworld Ltd [1994] 1 ERNZ 321;McKechnie Pacific (NZ) Ltd v Clemow [1998] 3 ERNZ 245;Northern Clerical etc Union v Beachlands Engineering Ltd [1991] 3 ERNZ 1023;NZ Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites [2000] 1 ERNZ 739;Savage v Unlimited Architecture Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 40;Wellington Road Transport etc IUOW v Fletcher Construction Co Ltd (re Hepi) [1983] ACJ 653;Wilkinson v Wairarapa Crown Health Enterprise Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 133 |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |