| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 22/06 |
| Hearing date | 5 Dec 2005 - 6 Dec 2005 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 02 February 2006 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | JM Butler ; P Swarbrick |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Conquer v Status Produce Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicant alleged that redundancy a ruse to remove him for other reasons - Significant tensions in working relationships between operations manager, applicant and applicant's mother and father (who also worked for respondent) - Operations manager had concerns about applicant's allegedly poor performance - However applicant had not met burden of establishing that redundancy motivated solely by ulterior motive - Performance concerns contributed to mixed motive" for redundancy - Whether genuine commercial reasons for redundancy - Applicant alleged new job created was really his old job renamed - Reason given for restructuring was to remove duplication between roles and improve communication and organisational efficiency - Applicant's employment agreement defined "redundancy" as "a situation where your position is wholly or partly surplus to the Company's needs" - Use of word "partly" did not allow any small superfluity in role to fall within redundancy definition - Work of new role was substantially same as old role - What change might have been required was nothing more than change of focus or emphasis - Genuine business reasons for redundancy not established - Authority did not need to consider further any "mixed motive" aspects - Whether procedural fairness - Applicant told that selection for new position would comprise interview by panel and past performance would be taken into account - Instead applicant interviewed by only one person, a consultant, who had no information about applicant's past performance - Restructuring proposal also advised applicant that respondent would take initiative in finding him another job - No steps taken to identify any retraining or other assistance that applicant might need for positions respondent suggested - Unjustified dismissal - Remedies - Reimbursement of lost wages - Applied unsuccessfully for five jobs over 28 weeks - Circumstances of losing job with respondent affected applicant's confidence in seeking work - Adequate endeavours to mitigate loss - Loss of income assessed at 35 weeks salary with deductions for wages in lieu of notice and redundancy compensation - Grading manager" |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (20 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Aoraki Corporation Ltd v McGavin [1998] 1 ERNZ 601;Auckland Regional Council v Sanson [1999] 2 ERNZ 597;Coutts Cars Ltd v Baguley [2001] ERNZ 660 ; [2002] 2 NZLR 533;Forest Park (NZ) Ltd v Adams [2000] 2 ERNZ 310;GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington etc Caretakers etc IUOW [1990] 2 NZILR 1079; (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843;McCulloch v NZ Fire Service Commission [1998] 3 ERNZ 378;Nelson Aero Club Inc v Palmer unreported, Shaw J, 7 March 2000, WC 10A/00;New Zealand Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites [2000] 1 ERNZ 739;Rolls v Wellington Gas Co Ltd [1998] 3 ERNZ 116;Savage v Unlimited Architecture Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 40;Telecom New Zealand Ltd v Nutter [2004] 1 ERNZ 315;Wilkinson v Wairarapa CHE [1999] 2 ERNZ 133 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 22_06.pdf [pdf 94 KB] |