| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 6/06 |
| Hearing date | 1 Dec 2005 |
| Determination date | 24 January 2006 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | S Kirk ; B Nathan |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Jarvis v Canterbury Cleaning Service Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Respondent had contract to perform cleaning at a school until it lost contract to another cleaning contractor – Some discussion with staff about transferring to new contractor or accepting alternative work – Applicant did not transfer or obtain other work – At the time parties thought situation was covered by Part 6A of Employment Relations Act 2000 - Situation materially identical to Gibbs v Crest (cited below) – Letter asking staff to elect to transfer by specified date not seen by some employees including applicant – However, CEO spoke with applicant about need to make decision by specified date – Applicant did not indicate any intention to transfer – CEO told applicant he would bring him form to sign – However did not meet with applicant – CEO alleged he thought applicant was going to transfer to new contractor – CEO wrote to new contractor confirming that applicant and others intended to transfer employment to them – After applicant sighted new contractor’s employment agreement, he told CEO he was not going to transfer and wanted to relocate within respondent - Was told it was too late, and there were no jobs for him – Subpart 2 of Part 6A did not assist applicant because of s69L – Also, as in Crest the respondent did not enter into arrangement for business to be undertaken by or transferred to another person – Even if had done so, would have been excluded from definition of restructuring – No obligation under 2004 amendments to ERA to include employee protection provision in applicant’s employment agreement – Applicant being told was no work for him amounted to a sending away or a dismissal – Unjustified dismissal – No notice of termination given – Fair and reasonable employer would not have neglected to confirm with applicant what his intentions were – Fair and reasonable employer would have talked to applicant about alternative work opportunities |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (2 weeks' notice) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,500) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA Part 6A;ERA Part 6A subpart 2;ERA s69L;ERA s69N(2) |
| Cases Cited | Gibbs and Ors v Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd [2005] 1 ERNZ 399 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 6_06.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |