| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Restructuring - Applicant's position disestablished - Applicant alleged not proper consultation and was not fairly considered for redeployment - Applicant applied for new position but was unsuccessful - Applicant placed on garden leave on day was told had not been successful - Vacated office that day - Applicant properly consulted about proposed restructure - Selection process not inherently unfair - Fact applicant not told succession planning was factor in selection process did not result in unfairness - Not generally good practice for redundant employees to be required to depart workplace in swift and unceremonious fashion - However, redundancies not often of such significance that they must be notified to stock exchange - Period in question very sensitive one for respondent - Could not afford further damage and was essential that investors and other key stakeholders had complete certainty about those accountable for its performance - In this unusual set of circumstances, speed in which changeover was conducted, and garden leave arrangement, was justified - No unjustified dismissal, or disadvantage arising out of this - Even if had found unfair, unlikely remedies would have come close to what was claimed - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Misrepresentation claim brought as disadvantage and claim under Contractual Remedies Act 1979 - Applicant alleged misled into thinking he was a prospective future CEO and accepted Chief Operating Officer (COO") position on that basis - Alleged he passed up other opportunities to stay at respondent, but would not have done so if had known truth about prospects - Respondent's witnesses more credible - Evidence did not establish that applicant's prospects at respondent were misrepresented to him - Observations on remedies made - During applicant's service, he was paid approximately $1.86 million (including bonuses and redundancy pay) - Applicant did not have evidence of any firm job offer from anyone else - Applicant would have struggled to show any misrepresentation caused him loss - ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicant offered severance agreement consisting of pro rata bonus payment on full and final settlement basis - Applicant declined settlement offer - Applicant said, in event claim unsuccessful, payment of bonus would represent wages claim - Clearly live issue between parties - Not sufficient information on issue to proceed to determine as arrears claim - Parties recommended to address issues themselves, with assistance of mediator if necessary - Parties had leave to request Authority to determine issue if necessary - Length of Service approximately two years (including garden leave) - Chief Operating Officer" |