Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 310/06
Hearing date 14 Sep 2006
Determination date 03 October 2006
Member J Scott
Representation B Leveson ; A Sheriff
Location Auckland
Parties Worrall v R Hannah & Co Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Respondent closed applicant's branch - Applicant declined positions at other branches because of travel involved - Believed respondent should have discussed possibility of role for her at proposed new local store - New branch only an agreement in principle, and dependent on number of requirements being met - Applicant offered position at new store once respondent knew going ahead - Claimed respondent had ulterior motives and only attempting to mitigate exposure to personal grievance claim - Branch closure presented to New Zealand management as fait accompli - No opportunity to consult on closure but proper to consult on alternative positions - Duty to consult did not extend to consulting on position at proposed store when no certainty about role at that location - For consultation to be meaningful must relate to alternatives about which there is certainty or near certainty - If applicant wished to work at proposed store she had duty in good faith to raise issue - Would have enabled respondent to clear up misunderstanding but made no difference to termination of employment - Not a breach of duty that group manager did not personally consult applicant - Authority noted respondent took other reasonable steps in process leading to and following termination, including payments in addition to contractual entitlements, and provision of good reference - Dismissal justified - Length of service 23 years - Manager
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Statutes ERA s103A
Cases Cited Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] 1 ERNZ 825
Number of Pages 6
PDF File Link: aa 310_06.pdf [pdf 37 KB]