| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 265/04 |
| Hearing date | 20 Jul 2004 |
| Determination date | 25 August 2004 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | P Pa'u ; C O'Donnell |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Foged v Sierra Carlton Gore Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Respondent informed applicant it was considering making her redundant for commercial reasons - Offered applicant role of chef at lower pay rate - Applicant neither accepted nor declined offer because not given position description as requested - Redundancy substantively justified - Evidence of predetermination - Redeployment option not fairly put to applicant - Reasonable to request job description as could not be expected to accept job without knowing what duties role required - Redundancy procedurally unjustified - Remedies - Applicant deeply affected by way redundancy carried out - Applicant claimed employment agreement which provided for only one week's notice had been tampered with - Reasonable claim as document was defective - Two weeks' notice could be readily inferred - Respondent required to reimburse applicant one week's notice - Executive Chef |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation, etc ($6,000) ; Arrears of wages (1 week's notice) ; Costs reserved |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |