| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 226/05 |
| Hearing date | 20 Jun 2005 |
| Determination date | 21 June 2005 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | Y Muller ; RK Wood |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Muller v Taam Gardens Ltd and Ors |
| Other Parties | Lowe, Lowe |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Applicant joined first respondent's directors as second respondents - After hearing second respondents' evidence, applicant conceded he was employed by first respondent - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicant told business struggling and his hours would be cut from four days per week to three - Applicant told respondent he was unable to accept reduced hours and considered himself redundant - Respondent considered applicant abandoned his employment and not entitled to pay in lieu of notice - Respondent had changed terms and conditions of applicant's job and effect of this was that applicant already redundant - Applicant should have received reasonable notice and was entitled to one week's pay in lieu of notice - No more extensive consultation required because respondent was small business, going broke, and did not have many options - Redundancy only procedurally unfair in respect of failure to give notice - COSTS - Applicant incurred costs of $2,200 - Respondents incurred costs of $1,000 - Applicant entitled to modest contribution to costs from first respondent but second respondents entitled to modest contribution from applicant - Costs to lie where they fall |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (in lieu of notice)($440) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($500) ; No order for costs |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 226_05.pdf [pdf 15 KB] |