| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 122/06 |
| Hearing date | 31 Aug 2006 |
| Determination date | 13 September 2006 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | T Wilson ; S Hornsby-Geluk |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Spink v APN New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - During investigation meeting parties settled part of grievance - Applicant withdrew claims relating to deduction from wages in return for payment from respondent - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - DISPUTE - Applicant claimed disadvantaged and sought declaration entitled to redundancy compensation - Applicant’s position no longer required after restructure - Pursuant to employment agreement respondent required applicant to revert to former role - Applicant claimed offer did not amount to “suitable alternative employment” and therefore entitled to redundancy compensation - Suitability of alternative position to be determined objectively - Applicant’s role post restructuring substantially similar to work undertaken prior to restructuring - Location, hours, pay and daily duties unchanged - Only change was applicant could no longer use title of deputy shift supervisor - Suitable alternative employment - No unjustified disadvantage - Applicant not entitled to redundancy compensation - Length of service seven years - Printer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Carter Holt Harvey v Wallis [1998] 3 ERNZ 984;Pilgrim v Director-General New Zealand Department of Health [1992] 3 ERNZ 190;Tranz Rail Ltd v Rail and Maritime Transport Union Inc [1999] 1 ERNZ 460 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 122_06.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |