| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 9/01 |
| Determination date | 16 March 2001 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | A Scott-Howman ; J Chesterman |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Wood v Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Constructive dismissal - Respondent merged with new company - Redundancy was to be paid if suitable alternative employment not offered - Applicant's position ceased to exist - Appointed to new position - Loss of responsibility - Lesser scope of duties - Undertook new duties for 2 months on without prejudice basis then resigned - Whether a sufficient difference between positions to break essential continuity of employment - Objective test - Considered nature and terms of each position and characteristics of applicant - Fair and reasonable employer would have accepted that new position amounted to demotion - Not a suitable alternative - Applicant's position redundant - Redundancy compensation due - Respondent acted in good faith - Getting the process wrong did not amount to bad faith - Tele-sales representative |
| Result | Application granted ; Redundancy compensation (To be determined by parties' contractual formula) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s65 |
| Cases Cited | Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Wallis [1998] 3 ERNZ 984;Sanson v Auckland Regional Council [1999] 1 ERNZ 708 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |