| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 81/03 |
| Hearing date | 27 May 2003 |
| Determination date | 23 July 2003 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | P Hall ; C Peattie |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Neutze v Peter Baker Transport Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicant employed in sales position - When co-worker in sales support resigned applicant took over sales support duties and did less tele-sales work - Sales support work included in applicant's job description - Unable to meet sales budget - Tele-sales position made redundant - Applicant offered redeployment to sales support role but declined position - Genuine redundancy - Procedurally fair - No predetermination - Whether breach of Fair Trading Act 1986 by promotion of job as tele-sales opportunity - No misleading or deceptive conduct - Applicant had not suffered loss or damage - Employed and remunerated as promised - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Alleged disadvantaged by not being allowed to perform role of tele-sales consultant - Justifiably directed to perform sales support work and have tele-sales work limited - Compensated by increased salary - Limited tele-sales work had no relevance to position being disestablished - Applicant unsuccessful in application for accounts manager vacancy - Told would have been better qualified if had done more tele-sales work - Any disadvantage would have related to potential employment not grievance - Tele sales consultant |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Fair Trading Act 1986 s9;Fair Trading Act 1986 s12 |
| Cases Cited | Victoria University of Wellington v Haddon [1996] 1 ERNZ 139 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |