| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 239/06 |
| Hearing date | 29 Jun 2006 |
| Determination date | 12 July 2006 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | F Sabbineni ; P Tremewan |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Sneddon v Towers Auckland (2002) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Whether redundancy genuine - Respondent's client wanted to replace worker from site with in-house man - Client indicated wanted applicant removed - No work available on other sites - Applicant made redundant after phone calls from managing director - Genuine redundancy - Whether redundancy process fair - As labour hire company respondent acted as middle man" - Authority accepted difficult for it to consult and consider alternatives in way expected of other employers - However, companies of this type cannot be used to effectively undermine normal redundancy practice - Permanent staff of these companies may legitimately expect to be treated in same way as other permanent employees - Couple of phone calls insufficient consultation - Authority would have expected respondent to discuss rehiring applicant if work available - Inadequate process - Unjustified dismissal - Remedies - Applicant contributed to personal grievance with continuing negative reaction - Remedy substantially reduced - Length of service five years (with respondent and predecessor) - Crane operator" |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,500) ; No order for costs |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 239_06.pdf [pdf 56 KB] |