| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 16/06 |
| Hearing date | 14 Oct 2005 |
| Determination date | 27 January 2006 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | C McGregor ; T O'Connor |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hitchiner v New Zealand Management Academies Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Whether applicant's redundancy genuine - Not able to find that redundancy was simply vehicle to terminate applicant's employment for other reasons - However, because of faulty selection process there was question over whether or not it should have been applicant's position that was made redundant - Whether procedurally fair - Selection process sadly wanting given indecent haste decision made - Little analysis or consideration given to applicant's overall skills and experience - Applicant not given opportunity to express view as to why her position should have been retained - Selection criteria not discussed with applicant - Whether breach of good faith - Redundancy took place prior to s4(1A)(c) Employment Relations Act 2000 coming into force but amendment seemed to be largely a codification of existing common law that required employers to act in fair and reasonable manner when anticipating termination of employment of employee on grounds of redundancy - Applicant fairly and reasonably entitled to better explanation to selection criteria - Manner in which applicant treated on last day of employment unfair and unreasonable - Subjected to unnecessary and unreasonable disciplinary process at meeting where told of redundancy - Applicant entitled to conclude by respondent's conduct that it wanted her gone with as little delay as possible - Final departure harrowing and hurtful process which in itself made dismissal unjustified - Redundancy procedure not exercised with requisite good faith - Unjustified dismissal - Remedies - Applicant entitled to benefit of doubt that she may not have been made redundant and receive reimbursement of lost wages of three months less one month's paid notice - PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Discrimination - Applicant alleged she was discriminated against on basis of sex when her pay rate compared to male tutors's pay rates - No evidence of any inequality on basis of sex - Hospitality tutor |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($5,050)(9 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation ($15,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004;Equal Pay Act 1972;ERA s4;ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s4(4)(c);ERA s4(4)(d);ERA s4(4)(e) |
| Cases Cited | Communication and Energy Workers Union v Telecom NZ Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 429;GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington etc Caretakers etc IUOW [1990] 2 NZILR 1079; (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 16_06.pdf [pdf 69 KB] |