| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 172/01 |
| Determination date | 31 October 2001 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | J McTavish ; R McIlraith & A Schirnack |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Quinlan v Allianz New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Whether genuine - Alleged breach of good faith during redundancy process - Whether adequate consultation - Commercial situation dictated reorganisation take place - Genuine redundancy - No predetermination - Consultation required - Proposal to restructure should have been subject to consultation - Alleged information in restructuring proposal was commercially sensitive - Authority had jurisdiction to determine whether material was commercially sensitive - Request for extension of time to consider proposal not unreasonable - Failure to provide information and extend consultation period was unfair - Breach of good faith - Termination procedurally unfair - Breach not wilful - Penalty not appropriate - Substantial compensation award merited - ARREARS OF WAGES - Alleged not paid full redundancy compensation - Incentive scheme - Remuneration structured as total employment cost comprised of base salary plus additional benefits - Whether redundancy payment calculated by salary in contract or on TEC - Contract was clear - Correct basis for calculation of redundancy was salary alone - Arrears claim not made out - Commercial underwriting manager |
| Result | Application granted in part ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s4(4) |
| Cases Cited | Baguley v Coutts Cars Ltd [2000] 2 ERNZ 409 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |