| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 219/05 |
| Hearing date | 12 Apr 2005 |
| Determination date | 15 June 2005 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | M Treen ; R Harrison |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Wipani v Spotless Services (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Whether entitlement to redundancy compensation - Restructuring - Decided to redeploy Applicant to another hospital - Clause relating to staffing surpluses applied though respondent did not think it did - Applicant resigned and believed was entitled to redundancy compensation - Agreement set out a number of options to be applied in staff surplus situations - Not applied in present case - Also, applicant would need to have established that new location was unsuitable which he did not do - No entitlement to redundancy compensation - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Alleged lack of consultation - Some of the initial difficulty regarding consultation came about because applicant had changed his union and respondent was not aware of that - Respondent had made efforts to resolve issues with applicant but applicant had decided that he wanted to be made redundant - Failure to use staffing surplus provisions was unjustified disadvantage - Had provisions been applied likely applicant would still have been working for respondent - Remedies - Contributory conduct 25 percent - Applicant failed to take dispute to Authority and withdraw resignation - Orderly |
| Result | Dispute answered in favour of respondent ; Application granted in part (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,500 reduced to $1,875) |
| Cases Cited | Pilgrim v Director-General New Zealand Department of Health [1992] 3 ERNZ 190;Sanson v Auckland Regional Council [1999] 1 ERNZ 708 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 219_05.pdf [pdf 24 KB] |