| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 88/03 |
| Hearing date | 16 May 2003 - 30 Jul 2003 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 12 August 2003 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | S Kissling ; R Webby |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Varney v Tasman Regional Sports Trust |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Applicant employed part time on 28 hours per week - Fixed term employment subject to continued funding - Job advertisement stated hours may increase - Employment continued beyond first fixed term - Applicant advised position expanding and recommended her hours be reduced and another part time worker employed - 28 hour week position disestablished and applicant invited to apply for new 40 hour week position - Did not apply for new position - Technical breach of s64 Employment Relations Act 2000 - No evidence breach disadvantaged applicant - Fixed term employment properly ceased - Genuine and reasonable funding reasons for specifying end to applicants employment - No evidence to support applicant's expectation of ongoing employment - Fair and reasonable to extend position into full-time one - Consistent with statement in job advertisement that hours may increase - No basis to suggest decision taken to deliberately thwart applicant of employment - No unjustified dismissal - Applicant not humiliated by termination process - Difficulties arose from applicants strong dislike toward CEO - Senior occupational therapist |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s64;ERA s66 |
| Cases Cited | Clarke v Norske Skog Tasman Ltd [2003] 2 ERNZ 213;G N Hale & Son Ltd v Wellington etc Caretakers etc IUOW [1991] 1 NZLR 151 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 88_03.pdf [pdf 47 KB] |