| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 282/04 |
| Hearing date | 29 Mar 2004 - 29 Apr 2004 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 03 September 2004 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | P Pa'u ; G Pollak |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Mateiwai and Ors v Sensation New Zealand Ltd |
| Other Parties | Mataora, Vavau, Schwalger, Telea, Natoealofa, Leolahi |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicants told could have representative at redundancy selection interviews - No advance warning of who would be interviewed or interview times - Summoned for interviews from workstations - Union delegate sat in on interviews of both union and non-union members - Union delegate not representative for non-union applicants - No adequate opportunity to seek advice and representation - Lack of notice and failure to provide information prevented applicants from being able to prepare for interviews - Union members represented by union delegate - Principle role of union delegate was to ensure consistency of treatment between members and non-members - Inadequate opportunity to speak privately to representative and delegate's role in meeting meant other procedural defects not cured - Redundancies procedurally unjustified - Remedies - Equitable to award equal compensation to union member applicants and non-union applicants to remedy distress arising out of procedural defects - Boat builders |
| Result | Applications granted ; Compensation for humiliation, etc ($3,000)(per applicant) |
| Cases Cited | Apiata v Telecom New Zealand Ltd [1998] 2 ERNZ 130 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 282_04.pdf [pdf 66 KB] |